Women as Kohanim (Bat Kohen)
Robert
> Kodashim kalim can be eaten by any tahor person, not just kohanim.
> (I just looked this up, and) according to the Mishna, kodshei kodashim
> (chatat, asham) are reserved for male kohanim, but the parts of shlamim
> that go to the kohanim can go to wives, daughters, and avadim also.
> I have no idea if this is contradicted elsewhere.
Along these lines, have people here considered status of women as Kohanim
and Leviyim? The following are the considered opinions of the Commitee of
Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) of the Rabbinical Assembly.
(Note that in all cases where the law committee has validated more than one
possible position, a congregation must follow the ruling of its rabbi, who
as mara d'atra [halakhic authority] has the sole responsibility and
authority in making such a p'sak [decision].)
(1) May a Bat Kohen and Bat Levi be called up for the first two Aliyot?
One position of the CJLS is that daughters of Kohanim and Leviyim can be
accorded the same aliyot that are normally accorded to Kohanim and Leviyim,
whether they are single or married. Their status regarding being called to
the Torah should not be determined by the lineage of their husbands, but by
their own paternal lineage. [Rabbi Joel Roth "The status of daughters of
Kohanim and Leviyim for aliyot" 11/15/89] Another position the CJLS is that
women do not receive such aliyot. The Va'ad Halakha of the Masorti movement
has also ruled that women do not receive such aliyot. [Rabbi Robert Harris,
5748].
(2) Women performing Pidyon ha'ben
There is precedent, though not with unanimity, in the halakhah for a Bat
Kohen to serve equally with other Kohanim with respect to Pidyon ha-Ben.
There is strong opinion in the Talmud supported by later authorities that
she may receive some of the priestly dues designated for Kohanim. Even when
married to a non-Kohen, she does not become a zarah like her husband, but
retains certain kehuna privileges. Women may thus perform Pidyon ha-Ben.
[Rabbi Aaron Blumenthal, 1977]. Rabbi Joel Roth notes that Rishonim (rabbis
from the 10th to 16th centuries) are divided on this issue, and cautions
that this issue requires more detailed study. [1989]
(3) Prohibition of performing Pidyon ha-bat on a newborn daughter.
Pidyon Ha-Bat is a newly proposed ceremony that would mark the redemption of
a newborn daughter; the CJLS has stated that this particular ceremony should
not be performed. Other means, such as a Simchat Bat, should instead be
used to mark the special status of a new born daughter. [CJLS teshuvah by
Rabbi Gerald C. Skolnik, 1993]
(4) Nesiat Kapayim [The Priestly Blessing]: The CJLS has approved two
positions on whether women may participate in Nesiat Kapayim. The Va'ad
Halakha of the Masorti movement has approved one position.
(i) A Bat Kohen may participate in Nesiat Kapayim because: (a) The word
"banav" in Numbers 66:23 does not mean sons only, but rather children. (b)
The role of the Kohen is either to serve as the medium for God's blessing to
israel, or to pray for Israel to be blessed - either purpose is appropriate
for a Bat Kohen who possesses lineal sanctity. (c) Nesiat Kapayim is not
de'oreita. (d) There has been a steady development of this ritual since
Temple times, and there is no reason for the development to stop. (e) A Bat
Kohen is permitted to receive other special honors accorded to Kohanim,
including Birkat Hamazon and Pidyon Haben. [Rabbi Mayer Rabinowitz, 1994]
(ii) A Bat Kohen is not permitted to participate in Nesiat Kapayim because
as a continuation of a Temple ritual, the Priestly Benediction should be
performed by those who were authentically eligible to do so in the Temple.
Women of Priestly descent may benefit from the perquisites of Kehunah, but
they are excluded by the Torah from performing the rituals of the Kohanim in
the Temple. Therefore, this should only be performed by male Kohanim.
[Rabbis Stanley Bramnick and Judah Kagen, 1994]. The Va'ad halakha of the
Masorti movement, in a teshuvah by Rabbi Reuven Hammer, 5748, also states
this position.
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
R
>
(i) A Bat Kohen may participate in Nesiat Kapayim because: (c)
Nesiat Kapayim is not
> de'oreita.
I wonder, Robert, if you could tell us where this novel idea
comes from. Especially since, a few lines earlier, this text
quotes the exact Torah words mandating this very Nesiat Kapayim
blessing.
>
> (ii) A Bat Kohen is not permitted to participate in Nesiat Kapayim because
> as a continuation of a Temple ritual, the Priestly Benediction should be
> performed by those who were authentically eligible to do so in the Temple.
I wonder, Robert, if you could tell us where this novel idea
comes from. What has Nesiayat Kapayim to do with the Temple
ritual. True, it was performed by the same personnel. But so were
many other things not at all associated with the Temple ritual.
Redemption of the firstborn of an ass has nothing to do with teh
Temple. And the gifts to kohannim of zeroa lechayayim vekeivah
are specifically designated as NOT pertaining to Temple
sacrifices. It is also tru that the Priestly Blessing was
performed in the Temple. But not exclusively. Recitation of the
Sh'ma also had its place in the schedule of the daily Temple
ritual, but only a fool would confine the Sh'ma recitation to the
precincts of Temple ritual.
For everyone's information: Maimonedes places the laws of Nesiat
Kapayim in his treatise on the Laws of Prayer -- NOT among the
laws of Temple Worship of sacrifices.
Can you help us out here, Robert?
Ben Dreyfus
>Robert wrote:
>>
>(i) A Bat Kohen may participate in Nesiat Kapayim because: (c)
>Nesiat Kapayim is not
>> de'oreita.
>I wonder, Robert, if you could tell us where this novel idea
>comes from. Especially since, a few lines earlier, this text
>quotes the exact Torah words mandating this very Nesiat Kapayim
>blessing.
Maybe he means Nesiat Kapayim outside the Temple?
--
Benjamin W Dreyfus dre...@post.harvard.edu
+----+
| 46 |
+----+
R
>
> And 'mid this tumult R heard from far:
> >Robert wrote:
> >>
> >(i) A Bat Kohen may participate in Nesiat Kapayim because: (c)
> >Nesiat Kapayim is not
> >> de'oreita.
>
> >I wonder, Robert, if you could tell us where this novel idea
> >comes from. Especially since, a few lines earlier, this text
> >quotes the exact Torah words mandating this very Nesiat Kapayim
> >blessing.
>
> Maybe he means Nesiat Kapayim outside the Temple?
What difference does that make. Nesiat Kapayim is not tied to the
Temple any more than Krias Sh'ma is. Both are done both inside
and outside of the Temple, and both are De'oraisa both inside and
outside the Temple.
Abe Kohen
"R" <rut...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3CDEC806...@concentric.net...
You misunderstood Ben's very funny joke. (I cracked up when I read it.)
Ben meant with hands cupped and inverted, i.e., begging for donations. That
too is Nesiat Kapayim!
Abe
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd. (Tirana, Albania)
"R" <rut...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3CDE9F2E...@concentric.net...
> Robert wrote:
>. Recitation of the
> Sh'ma also had its place in the schedule of the daily Temple
> ritual,
but only a fool would confine the Sh'ma recitation to the
> precincts of Temple ritual.
Please remember that the original poster follows minhag Creedmoor (and
remember what minhag spells backwards). Until the Temple is restored, the
Creedmoorer kehilot do not recite Shma. Something to do with certain classes
of people who are exempt from all mitzvot.....
Ian
Abe Kohen
"Robert" <judai...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> Along these lines, have people here considered status of women as Kohanim
> and Leviyim? The following are the considered opinions of the Commitee of
> Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) of the Rabbinical Assembly.
>
>
>
You left out the esteemed committee's opinion on circumcision of a newborn
daughter.
Abe
Ben Dreyfus
Wow, i missed it too.
R
OK! I get it now. Funny. Not so funny that it made me "crack Up,"
especially since you had to explain it to me. But it did elicit
from me something between a hearty chuckle and a solid guffaw.
cst...@rochester.rr.com
Abe Kohen <abek...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:abm3r5$jguq9$1...@ID-102750.news.dfncis.de...
Chas v'shalom.
--Cindy S.
>
> Abe
R
So now that you mention it, what is their opinion -- is it
forbidden, optional, or obligatory?
Eliyahu
IIUC, circumcision on a newborn of any kind is prohibited. Gotta wait till
the eighth day. :-)
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
R
Not always -- if you buy a newborn slave, you are required to
circumcise it on the day you acquire it, even if younger than
eight days, And if you buy a pregnant female slave, and she gives
birth to a male child, you have to circumcise it on the day it is
born. (Oh! Oh! here come the flames).
cst...@rochester.rr.com
> >
>
> Not always -- if you buy a newborn slave, you are required to
> circumcise it on the day you acquire it, even if younger than
> eight days, And if you buy a pregnant female slave, and she gives
> birth to a male child, you have to circumcise it on the day it is
> born. (Oh! Oh! here come the flames).
Why should there be flames? If that's the halacha, that's the halacha.
--Cindy S.
Eliyahu
I'm allowed to have female slaves? Hmmm... Sounds a bit kinky, though.
Anyhow, I'm sure my wife would veto the entire idea the moment she heard of
it. :-)
eliyahu
Robert
> >
> (i) A Bat Kohen may participate in Nesiat Kapayim because: (c)
> Nesiat Kapayim is not
> > de'oreita.
An anonynous person writes:
> I wonder, Robert, if you could tell us where this novel idea
> comes from. Especially since, a few lines earlier, this text
> quotes the exact Torah words mandating this very Nesiat Kapayim
> blessing.
> >
> I wonder, Robert, if you could tell us where this novel idea
> comes from.
> For everyone's information: Maimonedes places the laws of Nesiat
> Kapayim in his treatise on the Laws of Prayer -- NOT among the
> laws of Temple Worship of sacrifices.
> Can you help us out here, Robert?
If someone politely asks a question, I would be more than happy to
help him or her out. But when an anonymous person insults me on a
regular basis, posts letters to forum mocking me, and even says things
about me that are not honest, I tend to be less than motivated to help
them if they have a favor to ask me. I hope this doesn't come as a
surprise.
Given your recent personal attacks on me in your other letters, I have
no desire to go out of my to help you. Go read the teshuvot yourself.
Sigh. I came here to post some information on teshuvot about an
interesting subject, but yet again someone thinks that mockery is the
only response. Is Judaism really what people want to discuss here, or
is this forum just a veneer for lashon hara?
Robert
Henry Goodman
"Robert" <judai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fd15e7ab.02051...@posting.google.com...
Speaking for myself and not as a moderator I had some difficulty in working
out whether your original post was intended to be taken seriously or was
intended as a humorous parody. It certainly works better that way and that
is how most responders have taken it. However, this is Shavuous not Purim
and you have no sense of humour, so I must assume you meant it seriosly
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
46 days and counting
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>> Robert wrote:
>> >
>> (i) A Bat Kohen may participate in Nesiat Kapayim because: (c)
>> Nesiat Kapayim is not de'oreita.
>
> An anonynous person writes:
>
>> I wonder, Robert, if you could tell us where this novel idea
>> comes from. Especially since, a few lines earlier, this text
>> quotes the exact Torah words mandating this very Nesiat Kapayim
>> blessing.
>
>> I wonder, Robert, if you could tell us where this novel idea
>> comes from.
>
>> For everyone's information: Maimonedes places the laws of Nesiat
>> Kapayim in his treatise on the Laws of Prayer -- NOT among the
>> laws of Temple Worship of sacrifices.
>> Can you help us out here, Robert?
>
> If someone politely asks a question, I would be more than happy to
> help him or her out. But when an anonymous person insults me on a
> regular basis, posts letters to forum mocking me, and even says things
> about me that are not honest, I tend to be less than motivated to help
> them if they have a favor to ask me. I hope this doesn't come as a
> surprise.
ROTFLOLWTIME! Robert you're a card. You're in my killfile but when I
go through a thread you _do_ come up. And then I get a chance to see
the pathetic posts you pass off as "scholarship". You say "more than
happy to help him" but because you're annoyed you tell him "Go read
the teshuvot yourself". Robert, he didn't ask about the "teshuvot".
He asked about Maimonedes. And _ne_ has no trouble reading (studying)
Maimonedes himself. _You_ are the one who can't read Maimonedes and
has to depend on second or third hand translations. <sigh>
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
May Eliyahu Chayim ben Sarah Henna (Eliot Shimoff) have a refuah Shlaima.
Ben Dreyfus
>birth to a male child, you have to circumcise it on the day it is
>born. (Oh! Oh! here come the flames).
Doesn't this lead to health risks?
Harry Weiss
>>
>> Not always -- if you buy a newborn slave, you are required to
>> circumcise it on the day you acquire it, even if younger than
>> eight days, And if you buy a pregnant female slave, and she gives
>> birth to a male child, you have to circumcise it on the day it is
>> born. (Oh! Oh! here come the flames).
> I'm allowed to have female slaves? Hmmm... Sounds a bit kinky, though.
> Anyhow, I'm sure my wife would veto the entire idea the moment she heard of
> it. :-)
Sorry to disappoint you but only another slave (gentile or Jewish) and a
mamzer are permitted tohave realtionships with a female slave.
> eliyahu
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Remember to Count the Omer
Go Kings
Eliyahu
<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2002May1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
the vast majority of responses to his posts are focused on him, rather than
what he says. People will be more successful in refuting those ideas they
disagree with if they address the issues rather than the poster. Most of us
would not accept it if people responded to Josh's Bible Quiz posts or
Moshe's weekly ruminations on Torah and Breslov by criticizing them for
posting it. (Yes, I realize that their material is fresh each week, while
Robert's doesn't change much, but that's immaterial.) Why should we find it
any more acceptable to attack someone else on a personal level instead of
addressing the issues and opinions themselves?
Frankly, I don't blame him for not responding to the replies here. Far too
many of them are in the nature of abuse rather than refutation.
I haven't the slightest idea why he posts all of his material, as it seems
to generate such a hostile response, but he has a right to do so under the
charter, just as the rest of us have a right to refute what we believe to be
incorrect. As I've said before, there's nothing to prevent one or more of us
from compiling a stock set of responses addressing the material he posts,
and reposting it as needed. It'd be a lot more effective than mud slinging
and name calling.
Eliyahu
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd (Tirana, Albania)
"Harry Weiss" <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:abngm5$867$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Eliyahu <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Not always -- if you buy a newborn slave, you are required to
> >> circumcise it on the day you acquire it, even if younger than
> >> eight days, And if you buy a pregnant female slave, and she gives
> >> birth to a male child, you have to circumcise it on the day it is
> >> born. (Oh! Oh! here come the flames).
>
> > I'm allowed to have female slaves? Hmmm... Sounds a bit kinky, though.
> > Anyhow, I'm sure my wife would veto the entire idea the moment she heard
of
> > it. :-)
> Sorry to disappoint you but only another slave (gentile or Jewish) and a
> mamzer are permitted tohave realtionships with a female slave.
OK - I hereby proclaim myself a mamzer - not very hard to do in my case!
Ian
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd (Tirana, Albania)
<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2002May1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
> judai...@yahoo.com (Robert) writes:
> > If someone politely asks a question, I would be more than happy to
> > help him or her out. But when an anonymous person insults me on a
> > regular basis, posts letters to forum mocking me, and even says things
> > about me that are not honest, I tend to be less than motivated to help
> > them if they have a favor to ask me. I hope this doesn't come as a
> > surprise.
>
> ROTFLOLWTIME! Robert you're a card. You're in my killfile but when I
> go through a thread you _do_ come up. And then I get a chance to see
> the pathetic posts you pass off as "scholarship". You say "more than
> happy to help him" but because you're annoyed you tell him "Go read
> the teshuvot yourself". Robert, he didn't ask about the "teshuvot".
> He asked about Maimonedes. And _ne_ has no trouble reading (studying)
> Maimonedes himself. _You_ are the one who can't read Maimonedes and
> has to depend on second or third hand translations. <sigh>
Maimonides? Wasn't he the Jewish doc who founded that big hospital in Boro
Park?
Ian
Henry Goodman
"Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:udvn4aq...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
> news:2002May1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
> > judai...@yahoo.com (Robert) writes:
> > >> Robert wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> (i) A Bat Kohen may participate in Nesiat Kapayim because: (c)
> > >> Nesiat Kapayim is not de'oreita.
> > >
> > > An anonynous person writes:
> > >
> > >> I wonder, Robert, if you could tell us where this novel idea
> > >> comes from. Especially since, a few lines earlier, this text
> > >> quotes the exact Torah words mandating this very Nesiat Kapayim
> > >> blessing.
> > >
> > >> I wonder, Robert, if you could tell us where this novel idea
> > >> comes from.
> > >
> > >> For everyone's information: Maimonedes places the laws of Nesiat
> > >> Kapayim in his treatise on the Laws of Prayer -- NOT among the
0> > >> laws of Temple Worship of sacrifices.
Because this particular post is quite funny if you don't take it seriously.
It's either a subtle parody of feminism or feminism/political correctness
gone mad.
Most of us think it should be regarded as a leg-pull and respond
accordingly.
Susan Cohen
Eliyahu wrote:
My husband has noted the same habit in me, that I cannot separate
the man from the message. My answer is always that you have to
know somehting of the man to understand precisely what message
he is trying to give.
However, I do not see this in action in Moshe's response to Robert.
Nor do I see *any* insults directed at Robert from the "anonymous
poster", who is certainly not anonymous to me. Not in the sense
that is implied by the term. Perhaps R was breezy in his tone, but
the answer Robert gave more than made up for that, IMO.
Susan
cst...@rochester.rr.com
Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:VUSD8.1791$k%3.20...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
[snippage]
> >
>>there's nothing to prevent one or more of
> us
> > from compiling a stock set of responses addressing the material he
posts,
> > and reposting it as needed. It'd be a lot more effective than mud
slinging
> > and name calling.
> >
> > Eliyahu
>
>
> Because this particular post is quite funny if you don't take it
seriously.
> It's either a subtle parody of feminism or feminism/political correctness
> gone mad.
> Most of us think it should be regarded as a leg-pull and respond
> accordingly.
I guess I must be really gullible because I always assume Robert is dead
serious.
Best regards,
--Cindy S.
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>what he says. People will be more successful in refuting those ideas they
And now, for the $64,000 Question: How many times in the past 5 years
has Robert Kaiser posted the *identical* material IGNORING all the dozens
of posts correcting (bringing primary sources) and refuting his incredibly
flawed post ?
a. 5 times
b. 10 times
c. 15 times
d. 20 times
>disagree with if they address the issues rather than the poster. Most of us
>would not accept it if people responded to Josh's Bible Quiz posts or
>Moshe's weekly ruminations on Torah and Breslov by criticizing them for
>posting it. (Yes, I realize that their material is fresh each week, while
>Robert's doesn't change much, but that's immaterial.) Why should we find it
>any more acceptable to attack someone else on a personal level instead of
>addressing the issues and opinions themselves?
Because many knowledgeable people have posted DOZENS of times refuting the
patently absurd material Robert posts. Yet he continues, totally oblivious
to any of our retorts.
Josh
>Frankly, I don't blame him for not responding to the replies here. Far too
>many of them are in the nature of abuse rather than refutation.
>I haven't the slightest idea why he posts all of his material, as it seems
>to generate such a hostile response, but he has a right to do so under the
>charter, just as the rest of us have a right to refute what we believe to be
>incorrect. As I've said before, there's nothing to prevent one or more of us
Fred Rosenblatt
Pidyon ha-bat is not forbidden by halacha. As a matter of fact, you
don't even need a cohen to do it. See my own website, pidyon-habat.com,
for some of the best rates around.
Harry Weiss
> And 'mid this tumult R heard from far:
>>eight days, And if you buy a pregnant female slave, and she gives
>>birth to a male child, you have to circumcise it on the day it is
>>born. (Oh! Oh! here come the flames).
> Doesn't this lead to health risks?
Why? Isn't medical cirucmcision often done on a child's first day. Is the
blood letting portion required for slaves too?
> --
> Benjamin W Dreyfus dre...@post.harvard.edu
> +----+
> | 46 |
> +----+
--
Eliyahu
<BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL> wrote in message
news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org...
> X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:82818
>
> >From: "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com>
> > Why should we find it
> >any more acceptable to attack someone else on a personal level instead of
> >addressing the issues and opinions themselves?
>
>
> Because many knowledgeable people have posted DOZENS of times refuting the
> patently absurd material Robert posts. Yet he continues, totally oblivious
> to any of our retorts.
>
following paragraph. It would be far easier and less time consuming to cut
and paste prepared replies to the information than to continually criticize
him for posting it.
Harry Weiss
> <BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL> wrote in message
> news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org...
>>
>>
>> Because many knowledgeable people have posted DOZENS of times refuting the
>> patently absurd material Robert posts. Yet he continues, totally oblivious
>> to any of our retorts.
>>
> And this makes personal attacks okay? See the last two sentences of the
> following paragraph. It would be far easier and less time consuming to cut
> and paste prepared replies to the information than to continually criticize
> him for posting it.
>>
ACtually it is often impossible and extremely time consuming to address
each point he makes. Impreaching the wittness is a more effective
technique.
Eliyahu
writes. If an apikoros posts here that halacha forbids us to eat pork, it
would still be true, and if a tzaddik were to post that halacha allows us to
eat pork, it would still be false. There's an old law school maxim that
says, "If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against
you, argue the law. If the law and facts are both against you, abuse the
opposing attorney." It might be worth considering whether "abusing the
opposing attorney" here might suggest to outsiders that we have neither the
law nor the facts on our side.
It might be much better to simply ignore him. I tend to skip over lengthy
posts unless they're in a thread where I've been active, and I suspect that
most casual lurkers will be doing the same.
Eliyahu
Ben Dreyfus
>Because many knowledgeable people have posted DOZENS of times refuting the
>patently absurd material Robert posts. Yet he continues, totally oblivious
>to any of our retorts.
But I don't understand the objection to this particular post by Robert.
It consists entirely of "The CJLS has said X, Y, and Z", so any
refutations should either show that Robert is misrepresenting the CJLS, or
should be directed at the CJLS, not Robert.
--
Benjamin W Dreyfus dre...@post.harvard.edu
# #######
# # # #
# # #
# # #
####### #
# #
# #
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd (Tirana, Albania)
"Fred Rosenblatt" <fre...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:61cb6731.02051...@posting.google.com...
However, a baby girl who has been redeemed is "not a daughter of my
nation*." (lo bat ami).
Ian
*Masechet Sreyfos 209:69 quoting the navi Kreedmooryahu.
Henry Goodman
"Fred Rosenblatt" <fre...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:61cb6731.02051...@posting.google.com...
It is geneva (fraud). You are letting the father believe he owes 5 selaim
and he doesn't.
Letting a bas Cohen receive the money for a son is of course worse; not only
is she stealing but she deludes the father into believing he has fulfilled
the mitzva of pidyen haben when he hasn't. There is also the question of
Beracha levatala (invalid blessing using Hashem's name)
The more important problem with allowing a bas Cohen to perform the minor
residual mitzvos of Kahuna that we still have is that when the beis
Hamikdash is rebuilt (Bimhero veyomenu) she will think she is allowed to
bring korbanot for which she would be chayov miso (capital offence). If she
tried to do that then the scenes I read about in this ng when a mixed group
tried to daven at the Kotel would be a village picnic.
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
47 days and counting
janet rosenbaum
>The more important problem with allowing a bas Cohen to perform the minor
>residual mitzvos of Kahuna that we still have is that when the beis
>Hamikdash is rebuilt (Bimhero veyomenu) she will think she is allowed to
>bring korbanot for which she would be chayov miso (capital offence).
nah. when moshiach comes, she'll let women bring korbanot.
janet
cst...@rochester.rr.com
Ben Dreyfus <dre...@hcs.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:abqh3k$pl8$2...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> And 'mid this tumult BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il heard from far:
> >Because many knowledgeable people have posted DOZENS of times refuting
the
> >patently absurd material Robert posts. Yet he continues, totally
oblivious
> >to any of our retorts.
>
> But I don't understand the objection to this particular post by Robert.
> It consists entirely of "The CJLS has said X, Y, and Z", so any
> refutations should either show that Robert is misrepresenting the CJLS, or
> should be directed at the CJLS, not Robert.
Is this an open invitation to refute/criticize the CJLS? A lot of the
posters here
could have a field day with this one!
Best Regards,
--Cindy S.
Yisroel Markov
Heck, when Hillel said in Pirkei Avot 2:8 "more maidservants, more
lechery" he probably wasn't speaking in the abstract. Similarly, as
I've posted before, female converts in the time of the Gemara had no
problems getting married, but freed maidservants did, for this very
reason. (OTOH, in Avoda Zara somewhere there's an incident of a rabbi
almost sinning with some freed maidservants...)
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Robert
Moshe writes:
> > ROTFLOLWTIME! Robert you're a card. You're in my killfile but when I
> > go through a thread you _do_ come up.
SCJM readers should be aware that I obviously am not in Moshe's
killfile. He writes personal attacks in response to many of my posts.
For the past two years he has been tracking discussion threads I am
involved in, and then attempting to disrupt them with flames. It just
isn't possible that he is ignoring my messages, considering that he
constantly reads them and replies to them. (This is obvious, right?)
Eliyahu writes:
> Although I often disagree with Robert, I still find it troublesome here that
> the vast majority of responses to his posts are focused on him, rather than
> what he says. People will be more successful in refuting those ideas they
> disagree with if they address the issues rather than the poster.
Thanks for trying to keep this forum on an even keel. However, it
should be apparent that many people here just don't want to do this.
They do not want a free marketplace of ideas, where non-Orthodox Jews
have the same rights and respect as non-Orthodox Jews. Their goal is
to attack and ridicule all Jews whose theology is non-Orthodox, in
order to make them feel less insecure.
> Most of us would not accept it if people responded to Josh's Bible Quiz
> posts or Moshe's weekly ruminations on Torah and Breslov by criticizing
> them for posting it.
Absolutely. Although I disagree with their posts, I don't attack them,
and neither do the other non-Orthodox Jews here. The hatred is solely
one way.
> (Yes, I realize that their material is fresh each week, while
> Robert's doesn't change much, but that's immaterial.)
If the same particular question comes up again, then the same answer
should be given. Why would anyone change the answer each time the
question is asked? Further, consider the recent topics: the response I
have given are not my own decisions; they are the considered decisions
of the rabbis on the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards. Since
their decisions on the topic don't change each time the question is
asked, neither do their answers. Is anyone really confused about this?
> Why should we find it any more acceptable to attack someone else
> on a personal level instead of addressing the issues and opinions themselves?
> Frankly, I don't blame him for not responding to the replies here. Far too
> many of them are in the nature of abuse rather than refutation.
Certain people here have even slandered the rabbis of the CJLS as
writing teshuvot so poorly that they are literally interpreted as
humor. I fail to see how that kind of lashon hara will convince any
people to become Orthodox. I think in the long run it just pushes more
people away from halakhic Judaism altogether. What's sad is that few
others notice this.
> I haven't the slightest idea why he posts all of his material, as it seems
> to generate such a hostile response,
I post these teshuvot summaries because - despite what the insecure
fanatics here believe - non-Orthodox Jews are human beings as well;
non-Orthodox Jews have the right to their opinions just as much as
Orthodox Jews do. When Orthodox Jews describe a certain Orthodox
halakhic position, you never see a concerted attack by dozens of
non-Orthodox Jews slandering Orthodoxy and ridiculing the Orthodox
rabbinate. But when someone posts the teshuvot summaries of the
Conservative movement's halakhic body (CJLS), the only response is a
concerted series of personal attacks and ridicule.
In all other forums I am on, my posts do *not* generate that kind of
response. Only here. Therefore, this should tell you something about
the personality of the people involved on this one forum. Its not
Judaism they are interested in; it appears to be hurting other Jews
which is their goal. :(
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
Eliyahu
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:wTaE8.76697$qU1.18...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
within the limits of the charter, just as we can disagree with those of any
other Jewish organization. It's also much fairer than attacking the
"messenger" who posts their decisions and statements.
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
Ron Aaron
>>
>> Moshe writes:
>>
>>>> ROTFLOLWTIME! Robert you're a card. You're in my killfile but when I
>>>> go through a thread you _do_ come up.
>>
>> SCJM readers should be aware that I obviously am not in Moshe's
>> killfile. He writes personal attacks in response to many of my posts.
Dear Robert -
It is not obvious at all; he can easily see your posts because people don't
trim cites on this NG! FWIW, Moshe is not attacking you - he is expressing
his unbounded joy at seeing your posts unexpectedly.
<snip>
>> Further, consider the recent topics: the response I have given are not my
>> own decisions; they are the considered decisions of the rabbis on the
>> Committee on Jewish Law and Standards.
In the interest of honesty and fairness, you must note that the "Committee
on
Jewish Law and Standards", while having an impressive name, does not
represent
*even* the Conservative movement. One proof of this is here:
http://www.masorti.org/mason/have/responsa/drive_shabbat.html
Proving that the "Masorti" movement in Israel -- which is the Israeli branch
of the Conservative movement in the U.S.A. -- does not agree with the CJLS'
heter for driving on shabbat. There is other food for thought on that site.
As to whether their opinions are "considered" or otherwise, I am not in a
position to say.
>> Certain people here have even slandered the rabbis of the CJLS as writing
>> teshuvot so poorly that they are literally interpreted as humor. I fail
to
>> see how that kind of lashon hara will convince any people to become
>> Orthodox. I think in the long run it just pushes more people away from
>> halakhic Judaism altogether. What's sad is that few others notice this.
Look into what 'lashon hara' is before you make a statement like this. It
is
unseemly of you to say such a thing. The CJLS teshuvot are weak enough that
even I can find holes in them, and I -- B"H -- am no talmid hacham!
>> I post these teshuvot summaries because - despite what the insecure
>> fanatics here believe - non-Orthodox Jews are human beings as well;
<much more snippage>
Robert, you would get far more sympathy if you didn't actively look for it.
Where did you learn debating technique? Ad-hominem arguments are not
considered logically valid, even where they may prove emotionally
satisfying.
I recommend to you:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/
You would further benefit from actually answering the objections raised,
where
they are against the content you post, rather than claiming that every O
poster is out to get you. You really seem to enjoy the "Appeal to Pity":
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ap.htm
Why did you not answer my specific response to your claims about the Rambam
and mashiah? Your 'post-and-run' technique is at best irresponsible, and at
worst a deliberate obfuscation technique. I am surprised so many of your
posts get through.
>> Shalom,
If only you meant it!
Best regards,
Ron
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
>> Maimonedes himself. _You_ are the one who can't read Maimonedes and
>> has to depend on second or third hand translations. <sigh>
>>
> Although I often disagree with Robert, I still find it troublesome
> here that the vast majority of responses to his posts are focused
> on him, rather than what he says.
There are more than one reason for this. There was a time when we
bothered. But even then he took such refutations personally. And he
never really bothered to respond, just claimed you were attacking
"scholars". But after his attack on Eliot, when he tried to have him
fired from his job, RK has lost _all_ sympathy.
> People will be more successful in refuting those ideas they
> disagree with if they address the issues rather than the poster.
It's nnot even a matter of "ideas they disagree with". In this thread
for example, he begins by declaring "Nesiat Kapayim is not de'oreita".
He brings no source, just states it. So how to refute it? To say it
_is_ de'oreita and bring sources? That sems to be what R did. And RK,
true to form, ignores it and derides R for being an "annonymous
poster".
> Most of us would not accept it if people responded to Josh's Bible
> Quiz posts or Moshe's weekly ruminations on Torah and Breslov by
> criticizing them for posting it.
Josh and Moshe never tried to destroy someone's livlihood because of
what they posted. Once RK did that, he lost all sympathy.
> (Yes, I realize that their material is fresh each week, while
> Robert's doesn't change much, but that's immaterial.)
Actually it _is_ material. After refuting it the first time, people
are annoyed to see it regurgitated, unchanged, the second, and third
and fourth and..... time.
> Why should we find it any more acceptable to attack someone else on
> a personal level instead of addressing the issues and opinions
> themselves?
Another difference is that these are not RK's opinions. He just
regurgitates what others wrote without knowing _their_ sources. The
few times my posts on Breslov generated discussion, I tried to
respond with some degree of knowlege.
> Frankly, I don't blame him for not responding to the replies here.
> Far too many of them are in the nature of abuse rather than refutation.
Poor RK.
> I haven't the slightest idea why he posts all of his material, as it seems
> to generate such a hostile response, but he has a right to do so under the
> charter, just as the rest of us have a right to refute what we believe to be
> incorrect. As I've said before, there's nothing to prevent one or more of us
> from compiling a stock set of responses addressing the material he posts,
> and reposting it as needed. It'd be a lot more effective than mud slinging
> and name calling.
Eliyahu, we've tried and as you say, he just keeps coming back for
more. I killfiled him a long time ago. I only se his posts when
someone quotes them or my reader looks for the _next_ post on a
thread and ignores the killfile.
But, after what he did to Eliot, I consider any sympathy for him to
be totally misplaced.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
You got it in 1!
Susan Cohen
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> > Most of us would not accept it if people responded to Josh's Bible
> > Quiz posts or Moshe's weekly ruminations on Torah and Breslov by
> > criticizing them for posting it.
>
> Josh and Moshe never tried to destroy someone's livlihood because of
> what they posted. Once RK did that, he lost all sympathy.
A quiz is not the same thing as "This is correct, everyone else is wrong!"
Same with a mere presentation of what someone says.
And if someone decided to counter the Breslov posts in the manner in
which they were presented, no one would quibble. And Moshe would
never, under any circumstances, retaliate by trying to make that poster
lose his/her job.
Susan
Jonathan J. Baker
>Letting a bas Cohen receive the money for a son is of course worse; not only
Who's that galach in the cape & mask? Why, Bat-Kohen, of course!
--
Jonathan Baker | Daffynition: Omernasolaryngologist:
jjb...@panix.com | Iyar, nose & throat doctor.
Web page <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker>
Jonathan J. Baker
>judai...@yahoo.com (Robert) writes:
>>> Robert wrote:
>>> >
>>> (i) A Bat Kohen may participate in Nesiat Kapayim because: (c)
>>> Nesiat Kapayim is not de'oreita.
>>
>> An anonynous person writes:
>>
>>> I wonder, Robert, if you could tell us where this novel idea
>>> comes from. Especially since, a few lines earlier, this text
>>> quotes the exact Torah words mandating this very Nesiat Kapayim
>>> blessing.
>>
>>> I wonder, Robert, if you could tell us where this novel idea
>>> comes from.
>>
>>> For everyone's information: Maimonedes places the laws of Nesiat
>>> Kapayim in his treatise on the Laws of Prayer -- NOT among the
>>> laws of Temple Worship of sacrifices.
>>> Can you help us out here, Robert?
>>
>> If someone politely asks a question, I would be more than happy to
>> help him or her out. But when an anonymous person insults me on a
>> regular basis, posts letters to forum mocking me, and even says things
>> about me that are not honest, I tend to be less than motivated to help
>> them if they have a favor to ask me. I hope this doesn't come as a
>> surprise.
>ROTFLOLWTIME! Robert you're a card. You're in my killfile but when I
>go through a thread you _do_ come up. And then I get a chance to see
>the pathetic posts you pass off as "scholarship". You say "more than
>happy to help him" but because you're annoyed you tell him "Go read
>the teshuvot yourself". Robert, he didn't ask about the "teshuvot".
>He asked about Maimonedes. And _ne_ has no trouble reading (studying)
>Maimonedes himself. _You_ are the one who can't read Maimonedes and
>has to depend on second or third hand translations. <sigh>
On top of which, he puts the lie to his own words. He says "if someone
politely asks a question" - which "R" does. Instead, he resorts to
the usual.
Ron Aaron
"Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:abudm0$563$3...@reader1.panix.com...
> Who's that galach in the cape & mask? Why, Bat-Kohen, of course!
And her side-kick, Bat-Kol.
R
>
> > Robert wrote:
> > >
> > (i) A Bat Kohen may participate in Nesiat Kapayim because: (c)
> > Nesiat Kapayim is not
> > > de'oreita.
>
> An anonynous person writes:
Red Herring
>
> > I wonder, Robert, if you could tell us where this novel idea
> > comes from. Especially since, a few lines earlier, this text
> > quotes the exact Torah words mandating this very Nesiat Kapayim
> > blessing.
> > >
>
> > I wonder, Robert, if you could tell us where this novel idea
> > comes from.
>
> > For everyone's information: Maimonedes places the laws of Nesiat
> > Kapayim in his treatise on the Laws of Prayer -- NOT among the
> > laws of Temple Worship of sacrifices.
> > Can you help us out here, Robert?
>
> If someone politely asks a question, I would be more than happy to
> help him or her out. But when an anonymous person insults me on a
> regular basis, posts letters to forum mocking me, and even says things
> about me that are not honest, I tend to be less than motivated to help
> them if they have a favor to ask me. I hope this doesn't come as a
> surprise.
Mocking? Did I mock you? You post serious errors of fact, and
whey I ask you for a source you say I am mocking you? Oh, I get
it. Obviously, you don't know the answers, and so the questions
serve to mock you. Well, that is your doing, not mine. You should
not post on topics you know nothing about.
>
> Given your recent personal attacks on me in your other letters, I have
> no desire to go out of my to help you. Go read the teshuvot yourself.
I have no desire at all to read "teshuvot" by people who think
that a) Nesiat Kapayim is not DeOraisa, or b) that Nesiat Kapayim
is somehow tied to the Temple Service other that incidentally.
>
> Sigh. I came here to post some information on teshuvot about an
> interesting subject,
Apparently many here thought your post was a humorous parody not
"information about an interesting subject."
but yet again someone thinks that mockery is the
> only response.
I asked questions. The questions amount to mockery only because
you don't know the answers.
Is Judaism really what people want to discuss here, or
> is this forum just a veneer for lashon hara?
Exactly what did I post that amounts to lashon hora? Quote my
exact words that constitute lashon hora. Of course. by
implication, my words say that you don't know what you are
talking about. But while my words merely imply that fact, your
post explicitly demonstrates it.
To review:
a) Robert posts a synopsis of a teshuva stating that a Bat Kohen
may perform the Nesiat Kapayim. And to support this notion, the
author points out that Nesiat Kapayim is not De'Oraisa. That is
simply wrong. Nesiat Kapayim is De'Oraisa.
b) Robert then presents a teshuvah with an opposing view, stating
that a Bat Kohen may NOT perform the Nesiat Kapayim. To support
this notion, the author conflates Nesiat Kapayim with the Temple
Service, where only male Kohannim may officiate. But this too is
simply wrong. Nesiat Kapayim is part of the prayer service, not
part of the Temple Service (Avodah) except incidentally.
Robert: If you have something substantive to add here, or are
able to fefute my above remarks (citing the legal codes, not
tertiary rehashes of the law designed to further an agenda), I
will be happy to learn. Yelamdeinu rabbeinu.
R
>
> >
> Refuting (or criticizing the actions/beliefs/standards of) the CJLS is quite
> within the limits of the charter, just as we can disagree with those of any
> other Jewish organization. It's also much fairer than attacking the
> "messenger" who posts their decisions and statements.
But I didn't attack him. I pointed out a few factual errors, and
asked him if he could cite references to show that they were in
fact not errors. If he doesn't know, all he had to do was say
that he doesn't know, and admit to at least the possibility that
the CJLS authors are mistaken. Instead, HE resorted to villifying
ME.
Eliyahu
"R" <> wrote in message news:3CE30773...@concentric.net...
The implied "you" in my comments weren't aimed at you... just at the general
tenor of replies we've had here. If it sounded otherwise, I apologize.
eliyahu
Ben Dreyfus
>may perform the Nesiat Kapayim. And to support this notion, the
>author points out that Nesiat Kapayim is not De'Oraisa. That is
>simply wrong. Nesiat Kapayim is De'Oraisa.
On whom and how often is it considered a d'oraita obligation in the
present time? Different communities have wildly differing customs on when
it is done.
Shemita is d'oraita, but is considered d'rabbanan in the present time.
--
Benjamin W Dreyfus dre...@post.harvard.edu
__ __ 49 __
49 /\ \\ \ /'_ `\ 49 49
49 \ \ \\ \ /\ \L\ \ 49
49 \ \ \\ \_ \ \___, \ 49 49
49 \ \__ ,__\ \/__,/\ \ 49
49 \/_/\_\_/ \ \_\ 49
49 49 \/_/ 49 \/_/ 49
Jonathan J. Baker
>"Harry Weiss" <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> >> Not always -- if you buy a newborn slave, you are required to
>> >> circumcise it on the day you acquire it, even if younger than
>> >> eight days, And if you buy a pregnant female slave, and she gives
>> >> birth to a male child, you have to circumcise it on the day it is
>> >> born. (Oh! Oh! here come the flames).
>>
>> > I'm allowed to have female slaves? Hmmm... Sounds a bit kinky, though.
>> > Anyhow, I'm sure my wife would veto the entire idea the moment she heard
>of
>> > it. :-)
>> Sorry to disappoint you but only another slave (gentile or Jewish) and a
>> mamzer are permitted tohave realtionships with a female slave.
>OK - I hereby proclaim myself a mamzer - not very hard to do in my case!
Is that why you left frumkeit - lack of available marriage partners?
R
>
> And 'mid this tumult R heard from far:
> >a) Robert posts a synopsis of a teshuva stating that a Bat Kohen
> >may perform the Nesiat Kapayim. And to support this notion, the
> >author points out that Nesiat Kapayim is not De'Oraisa. That is
> >simply wrong. Nesiat Kapayim is De'Oraisa.
>
> On whom and how often is it considered a d'oraita obligation in the
> present time? Different communities have wildly differing customs on when
> it is done.
It is deOraisa in the present time. The mitzva devolves upon
every Kohen who is called to the ducchan to go up and raise his
hands in blessing. Though the mitzva is an independent one, it is
connected with prayer, not Temple service.
The mitzva is not an absolute obligation such as tefilin. Tefilin
is an absolute obligation every weekday. Birchas Kohanim is not.
If called, the kohen must go up. He is not, however, obligated to
go out of his way to find a congregation that will call him up.
It is rather like Birkas haMazon -- if one eats the specified
amount of bread, one must recite Birkas HaMazon. One is not
obligated to eat the bread just so that he will then say BHM.
To summarize: Birchas Kohanim is a mitzva deOraisa, but not an
absolute daily obligation. Customs differ among various
communities as to how often they undertake to fulfil the mitzva
by calling up the kohannim thus obligating them in the mitzva.
The common custom among Ashkenazim in the Diaspora is to do it
only at Mussaf on Yom Tov.
>
> Shemita is d'oraita, but is considered d'rabbanan in the present time.
Shmita is predicated upon "Ki savo'u el haAretz" which Chazal
understand to mean "bias kulchem" i.e., when ALL Jews live in
Eretz Yisrael. Birkas Kohannim has no such requirement. "Ko
sevarachu es benei Yisrael," with no stipulations attached.
Another source of the confusion is that the mitzva is exclusively
upon Kohannim. The Temple service is also exclusively upon
Kohannim. Thus, people erroneously conflate the two.
BTW: The Temple service is also encumbent upon us, deOraisa, even
nowadays. We are simply unable to fulfil it.
Henry Goodman
"R" <rut...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3CE3C56E...@concentric.net...
> Ben Dreyfus wrote:
> >
> > And 'mid this tumult R heard from far:
> > >a) Robert posts a synopsis of a teshuva stating that a Bat Kohen
> > >may perform the Nesiat Kapayim. And to support this notion, the
> > >author points out that Nesiat Kapayim is not De'Oraisa. That is
> > >simply wrong. Nesiat Kapayim is De'Oraisa.
> >
> > On whom and how often is it considered a d'oraita obligation in the
> > present time? Different communities have wildly differing customs on
when
> > it is done.
>
> It is deOraisa in the present time. The mitzva devolves upon
> every Kohen who is called to the ducchan to go up and raise his
> hands in blessing. Though the mitzva is an independent one, it is
> connected with prayer, not Temple service.
[...]>
> To summarize: Birchas Kohanim is a mitzva deOraisa, but not an
> absolute daily obligation. Customs differ among various
> communities as to how often they undertake to fulfil the mitzva
> by calling up the kohannim thus obligating them in the mitzva.
> The common custom among Ashkenazim in the Diaspora is to do it
> only at Mussaf on Yom Tov.
> >
In Britain the vast majority of Shuls do not duchan (birchat Kohanim) on
YomTov on Shabbat (like this week). I have 2 British machzors which say
that. I get the impression that things are different in, for example, the
USA; The Arts Scroll machzor doesn't bring this minhag; it just says that
some paragraphs are omitted. The Mishna berurah brings this minhag but
disapproves. If possible, I try to go to a shul that does duchan on Shabbat
yomtov for the extra berachah.
Chag sameach
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
Abe Kohen
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
> In Britain the vast majority of Shuls do not duchan (birchat Kohanim) on
> YomTov on Shabbat (like this week). I have 2 British machzors which say
> that. I get the impression that things are different in, for example, the
> USA; The Arts Scroll machzor doesn't bring this minhag; it just says that
> some paragraphs are omitted. The Mishna berurah brings this minhag but
> disapproves. If possible, I try to go to a shul that does duchan on
Shabbat
> yomtov for the extra berachah.
>
> Chag sameach
I have always prayed Nusach Ashkenaz, where in Chu"l, Birkat Kohanim is
omitted on Yom Tov sh'hal b'Shabbat.
Apparently, Lubavitchers in Chu"l, do Birkat Kohanim on Yom Tov sh'hal
b'Shabbat.
In Israel, Birkat Kohanim is done on every Shabbat, including on the 18th of
May, which is NOT Shavuot in Israel.
In Jerusalem, Birkat Kohanim, is done every day.
This Shavuot, I will pray to be able to visit Jerusalem shortly.
Hag Sa-me'-ach,
Abe
R
>
> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
> > In Britain the vast majority of Shuls do not duchan (birchat Kohanim) on
> > YomTov on Shabbat (like this week). I have 2 British machzors which say
> > that. I get the impression that things are different in, for example, the
> > USA; The Arts Scroll machzor doesn't bring this minhag; it just says that
> > some paragraphs are omitted. The Mishna berurah brings this minhag but
> > disapproves. If possible, I try to go to a shul that does duchan on
> Shabbat
> > yomtov for the extra berachah.
> >
> > Chag sameach
>
> I have always prayed Nusach Ashkenaz, where in Chu"l, Birkat Kohanim is
> omitted on Yom Tov sh'hal b'Shabbat.
Actually, this is not dependent on Nusach ashkenaz, but rather
local custom. Many (probably the majority) of Nusach Ashkenaz
congregations in chutz laAretz DO have birkas Kohannim on Yom Tov
which falls on Shabbos.
>
> Apparently, Lubavitchers in Chu"l, do Birkat Kohanim on Yom Tov sh'hal
> b'Shabbat.
Correct. As do many others.
>
> This Shavuot, I will pray to be able to visit Jerusalem shortly.
>
I too said such a prayer this Shavuos. This is a prayer I say
every day.
Abe Kohen
> Abe Kohen wrote:
> >
> > "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
> > > In Britain the vast majority of Shuls do not duchan (birchat Kohanim)
on
> > > YomTov on Shabbat (like this week). I have 2 British machzors which
say
> > > that. I get the impression that things are different in, for example,
the
> > > USA; The Arts Scroll machzor doesn't bring this minhag; it just says
that
> > > some paragraphs are omitted. The Mishna berurah brings this minhag but
> > > disapproves. If possible, I try to go to a shul that does duchan on
> > Shabbat
> > > yomtov for the extra berachah.
> > >
> > > Chag sameach
> >
> > I have always prayed Nusach Ashkenaz, where in Chu"l, Birkat Kohanim is
> > omitted on Yom Tov sh'hal b'Shabbat.
>
> Actually, this is not dependent on Nusach ashkenaz, but rather
> local custom. Many (probably the majority) of Nusach Ashkenaz
> congregations in chutz laAretz DO have birkas Kohannim on Yom Tov
> which falls on Shabbos.
Anecdotal evidence:
Viener Shul in Williamsburg did not (c. 1960).
Kamenitzer Shul in Boro Park did not (c. 1964).
Nitra Shul in Boro Park did not (c 1965).
Several shtieblech in Boro Park did not (c. 1965).
Several shtieblach of Aguda type in Midwood did not (c. 1990).
and many many more.
> >
> > Apparently, Lubavitchers in Chu"l, do Birkat Kohanim on Yom Tov sh'hal
> > b'Shabbat.
>
> Correct. As do many others.
> >
> > This Shavuot, I will pray to be able to visit Jerusalem shortly.
> >
> I too said such a prayer this Shavuos. This is a prayer I say
> every day.
I am sure you do. V'techezena eineinu b'shuvcha l'zion b'rachamim, is a
prayer for God to return to Jerusalem. I say that prayer too.
What I did is to pray that my family members and myself, will all be able to
physically travel to Jerusalem, in the near future, implicitly conditional
on God answering another prayer for a refua shlema for my daughter, Naomi
Tehila bat Zahava Fruma.
Shavua Tov,
Abe
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
>
>> In Britain the vast majority of Shuls do not duchan (birchat Kohanim) on
>> YomTov on Shabbat (like this week). I have 2 British machzors which say
>> that. I get the impression that things are different in, for example, the
>> USA; The Arts Scroll machzor doesn't bring this minhag; it just says that
>> some paragraphs are omitted. The Mishna berurah brings this minhag but
>> disapproves. If possible, I try to go to a shul that does duchan on
>> Shabbat yomtov for the extra berachah.
>
> omitted on Yom Tov sh'hal b'Shabbat.
I remember, <sigh>. It always bothered me, you have to wait so long
and then to omit it on Shabbos.
> Apparently, Lubavitchers in Chu"l, do Birkat Kohanim on Yom Tov sh'hal
> b'Shabbat.
>
> In Israel, Birkat Kohanim is done on every Shabbat, including on
> the 18th of May, which is NOT Shavuot in Israel.
>
> In Jerusalem, Birkat Kohanim, is done every day.
Yayyy! I _love_ it. Of course, when we have no kohen...
> This Shavuot, I will pray to be able to visit Jerusalem shortly.
Amen. May you come with good tidings about your daughter and all your
family.
Harry Weiss
> Abe Kohen wrote:
>>
>> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
>> > In Britain the vast majority of Shuls do not duchan (birchat Kohanim) on
>> > YomTov on Shabbat (like this week). I have 2 British machzors which say
>> > that. I get the impression that things are different in, for example, the
>> > USA; The Arts Scroll machzor doesn't bring this minhag; it just says that
>> > some paragraphs are omitted. The Mishna berurah brings this minhag but
>> > disapproves. If possible, I try to go to a shul that does duchan on
>> Shabbat
>> > yomtov for the extra berachah.
>> >
>> > Chag sameach
>>
>> I have always prayed Nusach Ashkenaz, where in Chu"l, Birkat Kohanim is
>> omitted on Yom Tov sh'hal b'Shabbat.
> Actually, this is not dependent on Nusach ashkenaz, but rather
> local custom. Many (probably the majority) of Nusach Ashkenaz
> congregations in chutz laAretz DO have birkas Kohannim on Yom Tov
> which falls on Shabbos.
>>
>> Apparently, Lubavitchers in Chu"l, do Birkat Kohanim on Yom Tov sh'hal
>> b'Shabbat.
> Correct. As do many others.
The difference is that regular Askenazim (nussach Askenaz or Sepahrd) do
not do the tune which is used for the prayers on shabbat, but do it
similar to the way it is done in Israel. Lubavitch uses the full tune.
>>
>> This Shavuot, I will pray to be able to visit Jerusalem shortly.
>>
> I too said such a prayer this Shavuos. This is a prayer I say
> every day.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Remember to Count the Omer
Go Kings
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>> > "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
>> > > In Britain the vast majority of Shuls do not duchan (birchat
>> > > Kohanim) on YomTov on Shabbat (like this week). I have 2
>> > > British machzors which say that. I get the impression that
>> > > things are different in, for example, the USA; The Arts Scroll
>> > > machzor doesn't bring this minhag; it just says that some
>> > > paragraphs are omitted. The Mishna berurah brings this minhag
>> > > but disapproves. If possible, I try to go to a shul that does
>> > > duchan on Shabbat yomtov for the extra berachah.
Good for you.
>> > I have always prayed Nusach Ashkenaz, where in Chu"l, Birkat
>> > Kohanim is omitted on Yom Tov sh'hal b'Shabbat.
>>
>> Actually, this is not dependent on Nusach ashkenaz, but rather
>> local custom. Many (probably the majority) of Nusach Ashkenaz
>> congregations in chutz laAretz DO have birkas Kohannim on Yom
>> Tov which falls on Shabbos.
>
> Anecdotal evidence:
>
> Viener Shul in Williamsburg did not (c. 1960).
> Kamenitzer Shul in Boro Park did not (c. 1964).
> Nitra Shul in Boro Park did not (c 1965).
> Several shtieblech in Boro Park did not (c. 1965).
> Several shtieblach of Aguda type in Midwood did not (c. 1990).
> and many many more.
I'm with Abe on this one. I don't recall _any_ shul in Boro Park
(c.1960) which had birkas kohanim on Shabbos.
>> > Apparently, Lubavitchers in Chu"l, do Birkat Kohanim on Yom
>> > Tov sh'hal b'Shabbat.
>>
>> Correct. As do many others.
>> >
>> > This Shavuot, I will pray to be able to visit Jerusalem shortly.
>> >
>> I too said such a prayer this Shavuos. This is a prayer I say
>> every day.
>
> I am sure you do. V'techezena eineinu b'shuvcha l'zion b'rachamim,
> is a prayer for God to return to Jerusalem. I say that prayer too.
>
> What I did is to pray that my family members and myself, will all
> be able to physically travel to Jerusalem, in the near future,
> implicitly conditional on God answering another prayer for a refua
> shlema for my daughter, Naomi Tehila bat Zahava Fruma.
May Naomi Tehila bat Zahava Fruma have a refuah shlaima, b'karov.
R
Well, other than the specific prayer for your daughter, I have
been with you all the way. Same prayer. And now that I have your
daughter's name and her mother's name, I will bl"n include that
prayer too.
R
How many different shuls did you attend?
R
The tune is probably incidental. It is the recital of the Ribbono
shel Olam prayer that many omit on Shabbos. And in most
congregations the tune goes with that prayer. In Lubavitch
congregations the tune is sung at every word (except HaShem), but
the Ribbono shel Olam is said only during the final 3 words.
Thus, there is no reason to omit the tune on Shabbos.
Conversation I once overheard (translated from the original
Yiddish). Names are ficticious:
Moishe: What was the custom in your old hometown? Did they duchen
when Yom Tov fell on Shabbos?
Yankel: Yes, in our hometown they duchened on Shabbos.
Boruch: In our city they did NOT duchen on Shabbos.
Shmiel: Well, where I come from they did duchen on Shabbos, but
there was no Ribbono shel Olam!
janet rosenbaum
>On whom and how often is it considered a d'oraita obligation in the
>present time? Different communities have wildly differing customs on when
>it is done.
the aruch hashulchan says it's daily, and we're being mevatel the
(d'oraita) mitzvah for no reason.
janet
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd (Tirana, Albania)
"R" <rut...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3CE7AFC0...@concentric.net...
> > >> Apparently, Lubavitchers in Chu"l, do Birkat Kohanim on Yom Tov
sh'hal
> > >> b'Shabbat.
> >
> > > Correct. As do many others.
Creedmoorimlach make Birkas Cohones each time that Pesach falls out on Rosh
Chodesh. It is a must see...
Ian
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> "Abe Kohen" <abek...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > "R" <rut...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>> >> Abe Kohen wrote:
>> >> > "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
>> >> > > In Britain the vast majority of Shuls do not duchan (birchat
>> >> > > Kohanim) on YomTov on Shabbat (like this week).
snip
>> > Anecdotal evidence:
>> >
>> > Viener Shul in Williamsburg did not (c. 1960).
>> > Kamenitzer Shul in Boro Park did not (c. 1964).
>> > Nitra Shul in Boro Park did not (c 1965).
>> > Several shtieblech in Boro Park did not (c. 1965).
>> > Several shtieblach of Aguda type in Midwood did not (c. 1990).
>> > and many many more.
>>
>> I'm with Abe on this one. I don't recall _any_ shul in Boro Park
>> (c.1960) which had birkas kohanim on Shabbos.
>
> How many different shuls did you attend?
I was afraid someone would ask me that. I attended two, but my point
was that I never _heard_ of any shul doing it. Had there been such a
shul, I think it would have become a popular source of discussion.
Many of my contemporaries did indeed "shul-hop".
janet rosenbaum
>I have always prayed Nusach Ashkenaz, where in Chu"l, Birkat Kohanim is
>omitted on Yom Tov sh'hal b'Shabbat.
so have i, and we had duchening this shabbat/yontiff.
janet
Hillel Sabba Markowitz
> R <rut...@concentric.net> writes:
> > mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> >> "Abe Kohen" <abek...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >> > "R" <rut...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> >> >> Abe Kohen wrote:
> >> >> > "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
> >> >> > > In Britain the vast majority of Shuls do not duchan (birchat
> >> >> > > Kohanim) on YomTov on Shabbat (like this week).
>
> snip
>
> >> > Anecdotal evidence:
> >> >
> >> > Viener Shul in Williamsburg did not (c. 1960).
> >> > Kamenitzer Shul in Boro Park did not (c. 1964).
> >> > Nitra Shul in Boro Park did not (c 1965).
> >> > Several shtieblech in Boro Park did not (c. 1965).
> >> > Several shtieblach of Aguda type in Midwood did not (c. 1990).
> >> > and many many more.
> >>
> >> I'm with Abe on this one. I don't recall _any_ shul in Boro Park
> >> (c.1960) which had birkas kohanim on Shabbos.
> >
> > How many different shuls did you attend?
>
> I was afraid someone would ask me that. I attended two, but my point
> was that I never _heard_ of any shul doing it. Had there been such a
> shul, I think it would have become a popular source of discussion.
> Many of my contemporaries did indeed "shul-hop".
I was not sure what was meant when I first saw this thread, however,
every shul that I have been in has duchened when Yom Tov falls on
shabbos (including New York). The only difference is that one does
not say the "extra" paragraphs before the last word of each verse
(while the kohanim hum the tune before saying the word). I was not in
Boro park during the 60's but I was at Y.U. then.
--
Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore."
The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz - sabb...@bcpl.net
Abe Kohen
"janet rosenbaum" <jero...@hcs.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:acb6o3$5tg$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
Was there a Lubavitch affiliated Rabbi at the services?
Abe
janet rosenbaum
>"janet rosenbaum" <jero...@hcs.harvard.edu> wrote in message
this is harvard hillel!
the chabad rabbi davens elsewhere, but he comes in and hangs out in the
building.
janet
Fred Rosenblatt
> "Abe Kohen" <abek...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
> >
> >> In Britain the vast majority of Shuls do not duchan (birchat Kohanim) on
> >> YomTov on Shabbat (like this week). I have 2 British machzors which say
> >> that. I get the impression that things are different in, for example, the
> >> USA; The Arts Scroll machzor doesn't bring this minhag; it just says that
> >> some paragraphs are omitted. The Mishna berurah brings this minhag but
> >> disapproves. If possible, I try to go to a shul that does duchan on
> >> Shabbat yomtov for the extra berachah.
> >
> > I have always prayed Nusach Ashkenaz, where in Chu"l, Birkat Kohanim is
> > omitted on Yom Tov sh'hal b'Shabbat.
>
> I remember, <sigh>. It always bothered me, you have to wait so long
> and then to omit it on Shabbos.
We also daven nusach Ashkenaz, and omit only the long singing before the
last word.
> > Apparently, Lubavitchers in Chu"l, do Birkat Kohanim on Yom Tov sh'hal
> > b'Shabbat.
> >
> > In Israel, Birkat Kohanim is done on every Shabbat, including on
> > the 18th of May, which is NOT Shavuot in Israel.
> >
> > In Jerusalem, Birkat Kohanim, is done every day.
Valley Torah High School in N. Hollywood CA used to have a daily Sephardic
minyan in addition to the Ashkenazic. The boys from the Ashkenaz minyan
would just be finishing schachris and heading off to breakfast past the
Sephardim on the other sie of the Beis Midrash at about the time they were
duchaning. I always wondered whether they should have relied on the
Sephardic presumption of simcha to stip for the blessing. It seems like
such a shame to miss it.
Abe Kohen
Yes, I know, buy I wonder who sets the minhagim.
Abe
>
> janet
janet rosenbaum
>Yes, I know, buy I wonder who sets the minhagim.
the ritual committee, consisting of entirely ashkenazim. their opinion
is approved by the rabbi.
i was almost on it, but decided not to join.
janet
Harry Weiss
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote
> Valley Torah High School in N. Hollywood CA used to have a daily Sephardic
> minyan in addition to the Ashkenazic. The boys from the Ashkenaz minyan
> would just be finishing schachris and heading off to breakfast past the
> Sephardim on the other sie of the Beis Midrash at about the time they were
> duchaning. I always wondered whether they should have relied on the
> Sephardic presumption of simcha to stip for the blessing. It seems like
> such a shame to miss it.
Did you ever ask Rabbi Stulberger In all the yars my sons went to school
there, I only made to Shacris there once and thought the SEphardim were in
a classroom.
-- Harry J. Weiss hjw...@panix.com Go Kings