Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 97

Wed, 22 May 2013

• 1. Re: Gershom Mendes Seixas Preached in English (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: 50 (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Reform Practice in Orthodox Shuls (mith...@gmail.com)
• 4. Re: Gershom Mendes Seixas Preached in English (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: 50 (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Reform Practice in Orthodox Shuls (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Gershom Mendes Seixas Preached in English (Prof. Levine)
• 8. yovel (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: : Re: Electricity on Shabbas - R' Asher Weiss (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Re: Reform Practice in Orthodox Shuls (Ben Waxman)
• 11. Re: Insights Into Halacha: A Halachic Analysis of Recent Meat Scandal (CMB)
• 12. single and mikva (Chana Luntz)
• 13. Re: Reform Practice in Orthodox Shuls (Prof. Levine)

At 01:14 PM 5/21/2013, Zev Sero wrote:
>It could be that my information was incorrect, but it could also be that
>this was a departure from the usual practise.  Note that this was not on a
>Shabbos, but at a Thursday service that he invented from scratch.  Did he
>preach at Shearith Israel on Shabbosos?  And if so, in what language?  My
>information is that English was not introduced into SI until the mid-19th
>century, and that it was very controversial then.   Of course both could
>be true - perhaps Seixas introduced English and then it fell out of use
>after his day.  I'm speculating there, but so must anyone without enough
>data.

I wonder if Seixas was even fluent in Portuguese.   His mother was 
Ashkenaz and his father was a Marrano. I plan to write several 
articles about him,  so I will take a look at the sources I already 
have and respond later.

YL

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 07:22:56PM +0000, Arie Folger commented on my
reference:
:>:>           [The Qorban haEidah] spends all that time on this case,
:>:> but also (beginning of the 2nd long line of that d"h in the Vilna ed
:>:> at <ht
:>:> tp://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14142&;st=&
:>:> ;pgnum=391>)
:>:> "debeshe'ar shenei shavua' airi qera" -- any of the other 6, not just
:>:> the first.

: I think he is pondering whether shesh shanim ya'avod always applies, in
: which case, a Jew must be able to sell himself into slavery on yovel, too,
: or whether shesh shanim applies only to other shemitot, but not the one
: beginning with yovel.

But I see in the wording "debeshe'ar shenei shavua' airi qera" his belief
that
    debesher'ar shenei hashavua -- regardless of which of the years of
        the shemitah cycle yovel falls out on (other than shemittah itself)
    airi qera -- the pasuq says he leaves before a full 6 years
Even though the QhE happens to give the oft-cited case of yovel on
shemittah+1.

Kindly map your impression to the words, because I'm still missing how
it fits.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

>Where is it written that one needs a minyan answering?  One needs a minyan
in the room, but why must they hear, let alone answer?

See the Magen Avrohom OC 125:1 where he cites the BY in the name of the Rosh.

The Teshuvah of the Rosh cited by the BY is Klal 4:19.

Also see the MA OC 56:9.

It would seem that according to the Rosh, BY and the MA, there must be a minyan listening attentively to Kaddish as well as answering. 

Meir
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130521/cfc879fc/attachment-0001.htm>

On 21/05/2013 4:43 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>>
>
> Have a look at the write up about Gershom Mendes Seixas in David de
> Sola Pool's Portraits Etched in Stone.  There he recounts the many
> addresses and sermons he gave in English at Congregation Shearith
> Israel and gives English selections from them.
>
> The following is from page 363.
>
> "It may be well to recall how frequently he preached,  since it is
> often claimed that the sermon was introduced into the American
> synagogue by the Reform movement in the nineteenth century.  Seixas
> was born in 1745 and died in 1816.  There was no Reform movement in
> America during this period. The first Reformers began in Charleston in
> 1825.

Indeed.  The question then becomes whether the modern practise among
American Orthodox Ashkenazim comes from 1) Seixas's practise (Did his
successors continue it?  And did the American Ashkenazim copy anything
else from the S&P? shuls?);  2) American Reform; 3) European Orthodox
who got it from European Reform;  4) Somewhere else.

Also whether Seixas's successors continued to speak in English or reverted
to Portuguese.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 21/05/2013 3:22 PM, Arie Folger wrote:
> I think he is pondering whether shesh shanim ya'avod always applies,
> in which case, a Jew must be able to sell himself into slavery on
> yovel, too, or whether shesh shanim applies only to other shemitot,
> but not the one beginning with yovel.

Shesh shanim doesn't apply at all to one who sells himself.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 21/05/2013 4:24 PM, Meir Kahn wrote:
>> Where is it written that one needs a minyan answering?  One needs a minyan
>> in the room, but why must they hear, let alone answer?

> See the Magen Avrohom OC 125:1 where he cites the BY in the name of the Rosh.
> The Teshuvah of the Rosh cited by the BY is Klal 4:19.
>
> It would seem that according to the Rosh, BY and the MA, there needs to be a
> minyan listening attentively to Kaddish as well as answering.

Here is the Teshuvah of the Rosh:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1961&;pgnum=30

It's not clear to me whether the kepeida is that the one saying kaddish
needs nine people listening to him and answering, like chazaras hashatz,
or whether the kepeida is on the people, that they should be listening
to and answering kaddish, which they can't do if they're busy saying it
themselves.   But it seems a bit from the context that the former is
correct, in which case there would need to be at least nine people in the
shul who are not saying kaddish, and are carefully listening to the one/s
saying it.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

At 04:56 PM 5/21/2013, Zev Sero wrote:

Indeed.  The question then becomes whether the modern practise among
American Orthodox Ashkenazim comes from 1) Seixas's practise (Did his
successors continue it?  And did the American Ashkenazim copy anything
else from the S&P? shuls?);  2) American Reform; 3) European Orthodox
who got it from European Reform;  4) Somewhere else.

Isaac Leeser who lived in the 19th century in Philadelphia gave 
sermons in English.  He was a strong opponent of Reform which began 
to emerge in America during the middle of the 19th century.  His 
speaking in English was motivated by the fact that this is the 
language that people understood.

Seixas was chazan in Philadelphia during part of the Revolutionary 
War and then returned to NYC after the was ended.

Rabbi A Rice who came to Baltimore in 1840 spoke in German,  because 
his congregation consisted primarily of people from 
Germany.  Indeed,  in Baltimore during the middle part of the 19th 
century German was the language used in the shuls there.  This ended 
because the American born generation spoke English.

Reverends spoke in the language that most of the people 
understood,  and it most certainly was not Portuguese by the middle 
of the 18th century.

>Also whether Seixas's successors continued to speak in English or reverted
>to Portuguese.

They could not have "reverted to Portuguese." This would have made no 
sense,  because by 1816 when Seixas died,  there were many Ashkenaz 
members of Shearith Israel (It was the only synagogue in NYC until 
1825 when Ashkenazim started Bnei Jeshurun.)  and almost no Marranos 
who spoke Portuguese were coming to America.   The truth be 
told,  the members of La Nacion who settled in America quickly 
learned English.  They were primarily merchants and hence had to 
learn the language that was used in business in America before the 
Revolution,  which was English.

The minutes of the synagogue were kept in Portuguese with English 
sprinkled in at the beginning but not for long.   Soon they were 
mostly in English with some Portuguese sprinkled in.  The early 
minutes of Shearith Israel were published in two articles by the AJHS.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130521/6ab696f3/attachment-0001.htm>

<<> For terumah the Rambam paskens that it
> is only rabbinical today since one needs "everyone" (kol) in Israel (not
clear what the word "kol" means). Nevertheless, he seems to imply that only
from the days of Ezra is terumah rabbinical and doesnt mention what he
mentioned in Yovel that it ceased from when the 2 1/2 tribes were exiled or
at least when the 10 tribes were exiled when certainly only a minority of
Jews lived in EY.

I don't see this implication there.  He doesn't say when terumah stopped
being min hatorah, he just says that even in Ezra's day it wasn't.  The
reason Ezra is relevant, and one might think that in his day it must surely
have been min hatorah, is because he's just got through saying that kedusha
shniya, which is permanent, dates from Ezra.  So if there was a permanent
kedusha, then surely terumah min hatorah applied; and therefore he tells us
that no, it didn't.>>

What Zeev says sounds reasonable. However, I haven't seen anyone that
claims that
Terumah ended- from the Torah - with the exile of the 2 1/2 tribes or at
least 10 tribes.
The Rambam gives this halacha only by Yovel. I looked in
the Encyclopedia Talmudit.
They don't discuss it explicitly but seem to assume that Terumah was from
the Torah until churnan bayit rishon (according to the shitah that kedusha
rishona lapsed)

Again I really dont understand it. I am looking for some source that
discusses it explicitly.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130522/9d9bbc5a/attachment-0001.htm>

AIUI  (I know R' Weiss covers this in a few written places but I am at work
and don't have his commentaries on shas at home either, I think in minchat
asher on devarim somewhere in the 20's he covers the whole masruha which is
a lynchpin to his entire torah weltanschauung - but I have reviewed a
number of his shiurim on audioroundup and he comes back to this theme
frequently - if someone knows the feigenbaum family in Teaneck I'm sure
they could get r' Weiss to do a bcbm summary shiur) masruha means in this
case that besides any takanot , siyagim and mitzvot drabbanan which have a
drabbanan force, chazal were granted (perhaps through lo Tasur but imho r'
Weiss would likely say it's clear as day or libi omer li ) the power to
establish what would be included in the torah prohibition of makeh bpatish.
 But it would be good to see it inside 
I will see if I can find the minchat asher devarim section
KT
Joel Rich

===========================================
It's devarim #27
Kt
Joel rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

Halacha mandates certain things, like not talking between various points 
in tefila. But much of the style of any given shul isn't governed by 
halacha. Some places say psukei d'tzimra quietly, in unison (more or 
less). Other places people say them out loud at their own pace.  So yes, 
a Yekke shul is one in which there is more order than a yeshivish place 
or a chassidic shul. However all are good!

Ben

On 5/21/2013 1:40 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> At 10:19 PM 5/20/2013, Ben Waxman wrote:
>> No surprise that a German rabbi would want seder in shul. Yekkes.
>
> And here I was under the (apparently)  mistaken impression that proper 
> behavior on the part of those in shul required order and decorum! >:-} YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130522/ad35de2f/attachment-0001.htm>

 >On 2/05/2013 12:36 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:

:>   From http://tinyurl.com/ctcjgx7

:> [R' Yehudah Spitz on ohr.edu, dated 27-Apr-2013. -micha]

: Zev Sero:
:> Nice shiur, but unfortunately in a footnote he writes:

:>> A clear picture of the horrific conditions of Chicago slaughterhouses
:>> at that time was showcased in Upton Sinclair's classic "The Jungle",
:>> including a mention of cows "slaughtered in a certain way" labeled by
:>> the "kosher rabbi for the orthodox" (in the same factory as pigs!),
:>> with nary a mention of distinction between the kosher and non-kosher.

:> _The Jungle_ was a work of fiction with no basis in reality.  Sinclair
:> wrote it deliberately as propaganda for the unions, and made no effort at
:> all to research the facts before writing it.  Every sensational
allegation
:> in the book was false.  I'm not denying that the state of kashrus in
:> Chicago at the time was terrible, since we know it was from many reliable
:> sources; but this book is not evidence of that, and R Spitz's citing it
as
:> a source tends to discredit his case.
:> Also,
:>>  Pondering Pirush
:>>  There is a famous Talmudic rule "Kol D'Pirush M'Ruba KaPirush".
:> "Pirush"?!  The first time, I thought this was a typo, but it appears 7
:> times spelt the same way.  It's odd.  Is it possible that R Spitz spelt
it
:> correct, and the article was then edited by someone who decided to
:> "correct" the "obvious typo?

Let me get this straight- A well written halachic piece by someone who
obviously knows what he's talking about (the footnotes alone are quite
impressive) is 'discredited' because on a complete side point to the
issue at hand - you (who i'm certain is holding in the sugya just as
well) feel his backup proof to the Ridbaz's words about the kashrus
conditions in chicago was later possibly found out to be propaganda???
what does that have to do with discrediting a halachic article? Did he
misquote any poskim?

You also are not correct- The full quote r spitz concludes that In fact,
it was due to the public outcry engendered by this book that the Federal
Meat Inspection Act of 1906 was passed.

So it would not matter if the book was true or not. This certainly is
fact. The govt. sent inspectors and they found much of the book to be
true! I found this on wikipedia:

Federal Meat Inspection Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Meat_Inspection_Act>
 ...
> Historical motivation for enactment

:> The book's assertions were confirmed in the Neill-Reynolds report,
:> commissioned by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. Roosevelt was
:> suspicious of Sinclair's socialist attitude and conclusions in *The
:> Jungle* and so sent labor commissioner Charles P. Neill , and social
:> worker James Bronson Reynolds, men whose honesty and reliability he
:> trusted, to Chicago to make surprise visits to meat packing facilities.

:> Despite betrayal of the secret to the meat packers, who worked three
:> shifts a day for three weeks to thwart the inspection, Neill and Reynolds
:> were still revolted by the conditions at the factories and at the lack
:> of concern by plant managers. Following their report, Roosevelt became
:> a supporter of regulation of the meat packing industry.

 Either way, I cannot fathom what this has to with halacha and how this
 reference or editors' typos have to do with or discredit what seems
 to be imho a solid halachic work with some (possibly nonintentional]
 mussar built in. Yasher koach

 CMB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130522/78b42720/attachment-0001.htm>

R' saul newman wrote on Areivim:
: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/mikveh-and-the-single-woman/

: now  a normal  Rav  cannot  counsel  someone having  premarital relations
: to go to mikva, can they?

And RMB replied:
> I think it's a halakhah ve'ein morin kein. When counseling someone, if
> attempts to get them to actually follow halakhah fail, it may be appropriate
> to *privately* tell them about the least of evils. Or, it may be impossible
> to keep such advice from becoming public and naaseh lahem keheter, in which
> case, he cannot give such counsel.

Actually, I wonder if the sources even say as much as this.

The key teshuva on this is that of the Rivash in Shut HaRivash Siman
225 - and there he raises and answers almost the opposite question: why
was it that Chazal, once tumah and tehara became increasingly out of the
picture, did not make a takana requiring single girls to go mandatorily
to mikvah, to lower the risk of an issur kares occurring out there for
people for having relations with a nidah. And he answers, based on the
Ramban, that that would create a stumbling block, and cause people to
be lenient in the issur of having relations with a penuya. That is, he
was concerned that having single women go en masse to mikvah, would make
people who would not otherwise consider having relations with a penuya,
have such relations.

The Achronim then divide on the question of whether or not single women
may/should go to mikvah on erev Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur. The Magen
Avraham siman 606 si'if katan 8 records as the minhag that besulos do
go from bas mitzvah, and on the Sephardi side, so does the Ben Ish Chai
in various places, and he justifies the practice in Shut Rav HaPoelim
Chelek 4 Yoreh Deah siman 16. On the other hand there are others such as
the Sde Chemed (Maseches Yom Hakippurim siman 1 letter 6) and various
other achronim who write against this practice, out of concern that it
will cause a stumbling block and encourage the masses to view relations
with a penuya lightly.

But all this seems a very different scenario from the one referred
to above: - namely where there is no question that such relations are
happening anyway, and hence the only question is whether the ongoing
relations are bias nidah or not (and perhaps the frequency, which might
be diminished if separation during a goodly part of the month were
encouraged, given that all separation cannot be prevented).

Is it really likely that somebody who might be put off by bias nida, but
not if the girl has gone to mikvah, is then going to be encouraged to
start a bias nida relationship because they know that if they get this
established, they will then get a heter from a Rav to turn it from a
bias nidah to a non bias nidah by allowing the woman to go to the mikvah?

Seems a lot more far-fetched a chashash than that which worried the
achronim about the minhag of erev Yom Kippur immersion, and certainly
than the reason that Chazal did not, according to the Rivash, pass a
takana requiring all single women to go and render themselves tahora.

>-Micha

Regards

Chana

At 10:42 PM 5/21/2013, Ben Waxman wrote:
>Halacha mandates certain things, like not talking between various 
>points in tefila. But much of the style of any given shul isn't 
>governed by halacha. Some places say psukei d'tzimra quietly, in 
>unison (more or less). Other places people say them out loud at 
>their own pace.  So yes, a Yekke shul is one in which there is more 
>order than a yeshivish place or a chassidic shul. However all are good!

During the week I daven in the Lakewood Vo'sikin minyan and on 
Shabbos I daven at the Haskama Minyan at the YI of J.  There is 
absolutely no taking during davening at the Lakewood minyan,  which 
is a very yeshivishe minyan  and little talking at the Yi of J 
minyan.  Both are orderly and decorum is maintained.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130522/a5c5c8a3/attachment.htm>

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 97
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)