Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 062

Thursday, September 4 2003

• Women and kaddish
• Kaddish
• RE: Kaddish
• RE: kaddish
• RE: Kaddish
• Women and kaddish
• consensus
• Re: Mussar, haskalah, philosophy, kabbalah, and the standard curriculum
• Re: Mussar, haskalah, philosophy, kabbalah, and the standard curriculum
• Re: Women and kaddish
• RE: Women and kaddish
• Re: web sites on shabbos
• Re: web sites on shabbos
• Women and Kaddish
• RE: Women and kaddish
• Re: minyan in women's section
• Re: "el ishech teshukasech"
• Re: tefillin on Rosh Chodesh
• Re: Everett and bechira
• public tzedakka
• Parallel Universes
• Re: tefillin on Rosh Chodesh
• RE: Parallel Universes
• Sources?
• mechitza
• Re: Sources?
• Re: Women and kaddish

From: "Stein, Aryeh" <AStein@wtplaw.com>
> By way of illustration, whenever R' Pam had yarhtzeit on Shabbos,
> he would not daven from the amud, since he didn't think he knew the
> shabbos nusach well enough.

Doesn't change your point, but IIRC it was because his voice was too
weak to be heard.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 9/2/2003 10:51:39 AM EDT, AStein@wtplaw.com writes:
>> I don't remember the sources, but I do remember learning that, according
>> to all views (of what kaddish represents), an avel would not say kaddish
>> if a) he was at a minyan that he was not davening with; and b) there
>> is already an avel saying kaddish. IOW, if both conditions are present,
>> the avel should not say kaddish.

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> Even in our current situation where multiple individuals are saying
> Kaddish anyway?

I was told that at a minyan at which I was not davening, I should not say
kaddish even when an avel. If, OTOH, I am davening with the minyan, and
nobody else says kaddish, I should say it even though I am not an avel.

IOW purely a function of the tzibur one davens with.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> ...If, OTOH, I am davening with the minyan, and nobody else says kaddish,
> I should say it even though I am not an avel....

But only the kaddish after Aleinu (and not the kaddish after the shir
shel yom yom or before pesukei d'zimra), correct?

KT
Aryeh

[RJR:]
> In a message dated 9/2/2003 10:51:39 AM EDT, AStein@wtplaw.com writes:
>> according to all views (of what kaddish represents), an avel would not 
>> say kaddish if a) he was at a minyan that he was not davening with; 
>> and b) there is already an avel saying kaddish. IOW, if both 
>> conditions are present, the avel should not say kaddish.

> Even in our current situation where multiple individuals are saying
> dish anyway?

Yes.

KT and KvCT
Aryeh

>> ...If, OTOH, I am davening with the minyan, and nobody else says
>> kaddish, I should say it even though I am not an avel....

> But only the kaddish after Aleinu (and not the kaddish after the shir
> shel yom yom or before pesukei d'zimra), correct?

I didn't get to that level of detail, but I did ask specifically about
kaddish derabanan, and he (Rav Dovid Cohen btw) told me to say it.

I've davened in his minyan several times when there was no avel present,
and did not say kaddish because he beat me to it, including kaddish
derabanan. Don't remember what he did about the kaddish after kabolas
shabbos which might be analogous to the one after shir shel yom.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> By way of illustration, whenever R' Pam had yarhtzeit on Shabbos, he
> would not daven from the amud, since he didn't think he knew the shabbos
> nusach well enough. While there is an inyan for a person be the chazzan
> when he is observing a yahtzeit, this should not come at the expense of
> the tzibbur's tefilah. So too, with a woman's desire to say kaddish.

Aren't you merely stating your conclusion?

The former is al pi halachah. In fact, doesn't the S"A say that even the
kehilla not liking your voice is enough to disqualify you from being a
sh"tz? (Or, for that matter, not being able to distinguish between an
alef and an ayin?)

But there are no such halachas regarding saying kaddish when others are
saying it (other than to say it in unison?).

My point only is that there is a major difference, and you can't use one
to support (or undermine) the other.

-- Sholom

> So too, with a woman's desire to say kaddish.
> When this desire comes at the expense of the tzibbur), we should require
> a halachic consensus before allowing it.

Why a halachic consensus rasther than a psak of the LOR?
I know of several shuls that have moved hoshana on succot either to
or from musaf based on the psak of the Rav. Similarly for many other
choices a rav makes . why should a woman saying kaddish be any different?

Eli Turkel

Micha Berger wrote:
> I'm not sure that the characterization in RMBI's time of post-R'
> Chaim Brisker's Vilozhin as "'old style' yeshivos" is necessarily
> appropriate. The Vilozhin of the author of Nefesh Hachaim could
> not have been as narrow in curriculum.

That's why I put "old style" in quotation marks.

> > <slight digression> The Gaon's brother, in his peirush on Avos, deduces that
> > mussar is not Torah from the verb "Tz'u" in Avos 2:13. <end
> > digression>

> Why such a derivation? Mishlei is explicit in listing Torah and mussar
> separately numerous times.

I'm not sure it was a derivation.  His comment there was an explanation of why
they were told to leave the beis midrash to pursue this topic.

David Riceman

On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 04:17:48PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
:> I'm not sure that the characterization in RMBI's time of post-R'
:> Chaim Brisker's Vilozhin as "'old style' yeshivos" is necessarily
:> appropriate. The Vilozhin of the author of Nefesh Hachaim could
:> not have been as narrow in curriculum.

: That's why I put "old style" in quotation marks.

Clarify for me, please:

Did you call it "'old style'", IOW, you were labeling it in quotes?

Or were you translating RMBI who called it "old style" without the quotes?

I had understood you to mean the latter, and therefore asked about RMBI,
not you, how that characterization is valid.

-mi

PS: Ever notice that in Yinglish a kasha is "asked on" someone?

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

Aryeh Stein wrote:
> So too, with a woman's desire to say kaddish. When this desire comes
> at the expense of the tzibbur), we should require a halachic consensus
> before allowing it.

Can you explain how a woman's recitation of kaddish on her side of the
mechitza "comes at the expense of the tzibbur"? I'm afraid I'm missing
the point.

David I. Cohen

> Can you explain how a woman's recitation of kaddish on her side of the
> mechitza "comes at the expense of the tzibbur"? I'm afraid I'm missing
> the point.

I've been at shuls (including the local Agudas Yisroel shul) where a
certain woman says kaddish (very loud). It is a distraction to the men
(and I know that many women complained about it after davening as well).
Since this is so, there should be a halachic consensus before allowing it.
Contrast this situation with women's prayer groups, which, while I am
not in favor of, I don't really care that much about them because they
do not directly affect me.

KT and KvCT
Aryeh

From: "Avi Burstein" <betera@012.net.il>
> My mother came home from shul on shabbos and said that the Rav in the
> shul where she davened (who is well known and respected here in Brooklyn)
> gave a brief dvar halacha and he discussed the issue of web sites being
> open on shabbos. He said that after much debate and consultation with
> gedolim from EY they concluded that it's no different than keeping a
> store open on shabbos and is therefore assur.

I have come home from work on a Friday afternoon 2 hours before Shabbat
here in Califoria and accessed the aishdas site to print out divrei
Torah to read on Shabbat. I have also tried to access the Arscroll site
on Friday after Shabbat began in NY and found it closed for Shabbat.

There is another issue on some websites if the sites can automaticaly be
closed for Shabbat or does one have to do manual adjustments to take it
off line and bring it back. (I am talking when the server is on an ISP.)

A point of metzi'us. AishDas does not own this computer. We are tenants,
and pay rent. The name "aishdas.org" is an alias for a machine owned
by our service provider, used only in knowing which set of files to aim
for.

It would take a lot of work that only our service provider's staff could
do to have the web server not respect aishdas.org requests and still work
for anyone else's.

Now, speaking of torah.org and the like who do own (and pay people to
maintain) their own computer network.

I don't see what this noted poeiq was raising an issue with.

A store requires a human. A web site would be an issue of shevisas keilim.

Perhaps if your target audience is particularly Jewish, you can ask about
mesayei'ah. Although then you need to worry about the time zone of the
mechaleil, not the computer. Would the computer need to be off for the
entire duration of hadlakas neiros in Nome Alaska until tzeis at
some point near RSBA?

Depriving everyone of access on Fri and Sun lest we're mesayei'ah liydei
cheit someone living in an outlying location?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

Aryeh Stein wrote: "If a woman wants to say kaddish quietly while another
man says it aloud, I don't think anyone would really care, as it really
doesn't effect anyone else. However, I think an argument can be made
that when she says it aloud, it becomes an "issue that affects the entire
community," and a halachic consensus is required. IOW, matters of private
tefilah are private, but matters of public tefilah are public."

Three comments:

1. What good does it do for a women to say kaddish silently? If no one
answers amein and yehay shmay rabbah, there's no purpose to the kaddish.

2. When a women says kaddish it certainly affects the shul in which
she is saying it, but in those communities where there are many shuls,
I don't see how it affects "the entire COMMUNITY." And, with respect to
its affecting the shul, that should be an issue that is decided by the
moreh deatrah of that shul. Why should "halachic consensus" be necessary
to decide how a shul conducts its tefillah? R' Aryeh is right that
"matters of public tefilah are public," but because something is public
does not necessarily mean a halachic consensus is needed. A pesak from
the shul's rabbi should be sufficient, just as it is sufficient for all
the other minhagim the shul follows with respect to public tefilah.

3. There have been lots of comments about women saying kaddish along with
men. In the shul I go to, the rabbi permits women to say kaddish even if
there are no men saying it (a situation that, as my community gets older,
is becoming much more rare). The specific question put to him was: 'What
should we do if a woman is saying kaddish and no men are saying kaddish?
His answer: "Be quiet and answer amein and yehay shmay rabbah."

Joseph Kaplan

In the thread below, Aryeh Stein suggests that there should be halachic
consensus before women are permitted to say kaddish b'kol ram at a
minyan because it is otherwise distracting. I personally find shmoozing
during ANY part of davening to be distracting. Indeed, it seems to me
that the heart-rending t'filla of kaddish, recited by ANYone, should
be inspiring rather than distracting and that we should be far more
concerned with all the shmoozing that takes place during davening.
I wonder why shmoozing during davening, which diminishes kavanah,
and is clearly prohibited by the Shulchan Arukh, is not of far greater
concern to those on this list than the heartfelt prayer of a woman who
publicly proclaims her faith in G-d with a public recitation of kaddish.
What is it about our priorities as a community that some of us jump at
the opportunity to criticize a woman who wishes to say kaddish b'kol ram,
but remain complacent and silent about all the shmoozing on our side of
the m'chitza? Maybe those on this list who are distracted by a woman't
voice, in t'fillah, are also distracted by shmoozing during t'fillot.
However, it seems to me that among the entire universe of men (not just
those on this list) opposed to women saying a kaddish b'kol ram, there
are more than just a few who shmooze during t'fillot, particularly on
shabbat, and they don't seem to be the least bit disturbed by that.

Isn't shmoozing during t'fillot a much more pervasive problem?
Shouldn't we be directing our energies more in that direction?

KT
Avram Sacks



"Stein, Aryeh" <AStein@wtplaw.com>  on 09/03/2003 01:52 PM wrote:
> I think an argument can be made that when she says it [kaddish] aloud,
> it becomes an "issue that affects the entire community," and a halachic
> consensus is required. IOW, matters of private tefilah are private,
> but matters of public tefilah are public.

> By way of illustration, whenever R' Pam had yarhtzeit on Shabbos, he
> would not daven from the amud, since he didn't think he knew the shabbos
> nusach well enough. While there is an inyan for a person be the chazzan
> when he is observing a yahtzeit, this should not come at the expense
> of the tzibbur's tefilah. So too, with a woman's desire to say kaddish.
> When this desire comes at the expense of the tzibbur), we should require
> a halachic consensus before allowing it.


David Cohen (bdcohen@optonline.net) on 09/03/2003 03:42 PM asked:
> Can you explain how a woman's recitation of kaddish on her side of the
> mechitza "comes at the expense of the tzibbur"? I'm afraid I'm missing
> the point.

To which "Stein, Aryeh" <AStein@wtplaw.com> on 09/03/2003 03:53 PM
responded:
> I've been at shuls (including the local Agudas Yisroel shul) where a
> certain woman says kaddish (very loud). It is a distraction to the men
> (and I know that many women complained about it after davening as well).
> Since this is so, there should be a halachic consensus before allowing it.

I wrote:
> However, I never heard of a mishnaic era mechitzah, in all the shuls dug
> up. Dr Robert Goldenberg (who personally is C), cited once by RGStudent
> (joys of Google!), attributes it to the paucity of shuls from that period
> that were studied. Although I would think that it does argue that mechitzos
> were not made of sturdy stuff.

(Recall, though, that I think the rarity of their needing a mechitzah 
was the most likely explanation.)

As for why they would build mechitzos, as we tend to, as something less
than an architectural wall...

If the purpose of mechitzah was seen as dividing the people rather than
blocking view, the soreg would be the obvious precedent.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 08:17:42PM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
:> My answer is that the analogous language does not imply an equivalence
:> of Chava and the "chatat". 
...
: I am just getting around to reading carefully what I read hastily
: last time around. I don't remember whether I responded to you, but
: I appreciate your kind words and thoughtful response to my posting.
: However, you have not answered a basic question here, which is: does
: "hu yimshol bach" imply that the husband will resist and overcome the
: blandishments of his wife? (Or more broadly, that he will not love her
: as much as she loves him?) WHY is the language so strikingly similar
: in the two pesukim, about Chava and Kayin?

I thought this horse was dead....

Ber 3:16: ... ve'el isheikh teshuqaseikh, vehu yimshal bakh.
Ber 4:7:  ... veleikha teshukaso,         ve'ata timshal bo.

Notice a striking difference, one statement is made to the nimshal, the
other to the mosheil. One is telling telling Chavah she will never hold
the reigns, the other is telling Kayin to take the reigns and not let
his yeitzer hara rule. One a statement of what won't happen, the other
an imperative.

The assumption is that teshuqah + being a subject = being a temptation.
Why?

Another oddity, BTW, isn't a ruler whose subjects want him to rule
called a melekh? Isn't it interesting that in both cases, the teshuqah
does not imply a desire to be ruled?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 08:35:11PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Do those individuals that wear tefillin all/most of the day take them
: off for Musaf on Rosh Chodesh?

I would ask a broader question: And after mussaf, would the tefillin
go back on? Or is it like yom tov?

According to RYBS, saying "Keser" for the qedushah in mussaf rules out
wearing tefillin for it.

Context: RYBS holds that it's better to wear tefillin for mussaf than
to leave the tefillin on the table unwrapped, without proper kavod.
However, he said that those who say "Keser" really can't be wearing
tefillin while doing so.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

Micha Berger wrote,
: No, it doesn't work that way. There are NO choices made, at all. All
: possible outcomes take place. Thus, for example, if someone has in
: front of him treif food, two universes will be created - one in which
: he ate it and one in which he didn't. This will happen 100% of the time,
: automatically. If you say choice was exercised, then by whom? ...

>And therefore the soul itself also bifurcated. (Actually, it's not lines
>branching, it's lines fanning out into planes.) Each version of the soul
>is the product of the branch points that produced it. While this implies
>a very different meaning to "bechirah" or "choice" than we're used to,
>it doesn't eliminate the concept altogether.

But for there to be a choice, there must be at least (among other things)
a choice maker. Who or what is making the choice in this scenario?

>Just as events fan out, and souls fan out, so does the Torah. The
>"room" to absorb these conflicting outcomes could well be the
>reason for "Eilu va'eilu".

That would be all good, except for one thing - 'Eilu va'eilu' defines a
set of possibilities (e.g. 70 facets of the Torah). The set is finite,
not infinite. In the Everett case the number of possible outcomes is
limitless, and so must be the number of versions of the Torah. In fact,
then, every possibility is possible - one in which the Jews came out
of mitzrayim (and thus there are laws of Pesach, etc.), and one in
which they did not. One in which G-d 'rested' on the 7th day, and one
in which He didn't (so there is a concept/laws of Shabbos in the first
universe and no such things in the second). Clearly these possibilites,
besides sounding ludicrous, are beyond the finite set of 'Eilu va'eilu'.

>Can you see something that doesn't exist? Are you suggesting that
>Moshe's re'iyah was idiomatic rather than literal? Does the Torah
>use the word "re'iyah" to mean "think about it to make a determination"?

That's actually a quite reasonable interpretation. But alternatively
one can say that Moshe saw it in his mind, as one would visually play
out a sequence of events in his mind. Or maybe it was an actual nevuah,
where he in fact 'saw' the future outcome.

Eliezer

the Rema in hilchos tzedaka YD 249:13 recommends publicizing the name
of a donor. The Shach in Nkudos haKesef there quotes the Rashba that
the purpose is to encourage others to give.

Obviously this method is to tickle the yetzer hara of me and the next guy.
The religiously alert would prefer to do the mitzva silently. But who
says our dor (or shul) is not frummer than that of the Rashba (and Rema
and Shach)!

Shlomo Goldstein

Posted [from the NY Times -mi]:
> The hope was that when all was said and done, there would be only one
> solution to the theory's tangled equations, one answer corresponding
> to only one possible universe. But recent progress in string theory
> paradoxically seems to leave physics further than ever from that dream
> of a unique answer. Instead of a single answer, the equations of string
> theory seem to have so many solutions, millions upon millions of them,
> each describing a logically possible universe, that it may be impossible
> to tell which one describes our own.

Comment: The more things change, the more they remain the same.

A basic principle of Kalaam is that any possible imaginable circumstance
can exist. Why doesn't everything then not exist? Because G-d chooses at
every moment to sustain only some possibilities and not all others. That
is a favorite Kalam proof of existence of G-d.

See. Emunos 'Deos and Moreh Nevukhim, end of Part I.

M.Levin

R' Eli Turkel asked:
> Do those individuals that wear tefillin all/most of the day take them off 
> for Musaf on Rosh Chodesh?

In OC 423:4 it says the minhag is to remove tefilin when you want to
daven mussaf.

In OC 25:13 it says the same thing, and the MB (60) adds "those whose
custom it is to wear tefillin all day should put them back on after
mussaf, and there's no need to make a new brocho if he had intention of
doing so when he took them off."

BTW: He continues that on Hol Hamoed he should not put them back on.

- Danny

See http://tinyurl.com/9jsf

May 2003 Scientific American article on Parallel Universes

I'm looking for sources for a couple of ideas floating around the Jewish
community - any help would be appreciated. The first is an idea that
the name that one is given influences who one is/becomes. The second is
a vaguely remembered gemara stating something like "How does one honor
parents after they are dead? One repeats Torah in their name and says
'hareini kaparat mishkavo'" or something like that.

Any ideas?  Thanks in advance.

	-Shlomo-

Micha writes
> In the Ashkenaz of the rishonim, shuls typically didn't have
> mechitzos. Women simply didn't attend. That's what I had pictured was
> the mishnaic norm too, ...

I was once in the alte-neu shul (I think back to the 1200s) in Prague
and the shul has a section for women behind a stone wall with a small
opening. I believe that this section was added after the original but
even then would date to the early achronim at the very latest.

Eli Turkel

Shlomo Argamon wrote:
>I'm looking for sources for a couple of ideas floating around the Jewish
>community - any help would be appreciated. The first is an idea that
>the name that one is given influences who one is/becomes. 

Berachos 7b states that a person's name determines who he is

>The second is
>a vaguely remembered gemara stating something like "How does one honor
>parents after they are dead? One repeats Torah in their name and says
>'hareini kaparat mishkavo'" or something like that.

Kiddushin 31b
Y.D. 240:15 

On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 05:31:57PM -0500, sacksa@cch.com wrote:
: In the thread below, Aryeh Stein suggests that there should be halachic
: consensus before women are permitted to say kaddish b'kol ram at a
: minyan because it is otherwise distracting....

As pointed out already, that's a problem within the shul, and therefore
I would figure the marah de'asra has sufficient authority.

However, even though it's unfair, the issue does have broad communal
impact. It has been tied, due to the forces of history, sociology and
politics, to the broader issue of what kinds of changes in women's roles
in yahadus are appropriate.

Even if you believe that the threat of slippery slope or the impact
on those who will always stay one step more radical than the norm are
neglectable, isn't that alone a halachic issue involving the whole
Orthodox community?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]