Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 120

Thu, 27 Jun 2013

• 1. Re: Da'as Torah (Kenneth Miller)
• 2. Re: Current events (Zev Sero)
• 3. 9th of Tammuz (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Halachic ruling: Women may say Kaddish (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: Halachic ruling: Women may say Kaddish (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Late night radio (Michael Poppers)
• 7. Re: Halachic ruling: Women may say Kaddish (Allan Engel)
• 8. Re: Halachic ruling: Women may say Kaddish (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Halachic ruling: Women may say Kaddish (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Halachic ruling: Women may say Kaddish (Saul Guberman)
• 11. Re: Halachic ruling: Women may say Kaddish (Saul Guberman)
• 12. Re: Halachic ruling: Women may say Kaddish (Prof. Levine)
• 13. Re: Halachic ruling: Women may say Kaddish (Rich, Joel)
• 14. Shelach Gems (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 15. Mincha Maariv (Rich, Joel)

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> Halakhah is a legal process. Therefore, if we are told that
> legal authority rests in our rabbanim, then we're obligated
> to follow the pesaqim of our rabbanim. Their proclamations
> *define* what is right.
> ...
> Anyway, pesaq *makes* an opinion the law -- lo sosiru mikol
> asher yagidu lekha. The poseiq's ruling, assuming he actually
> followed the rules of pesaq and didn't make a mistake that
> goes beyond eilu va'eilu, is what makes it the law. ...

But in the real world, it can and does sometimes happen that the posek DOES make a mistake that goes beyond eilu va'eilu.

Not only can this happen nowadays, but it can even happen to the Sanhedrin, and we have a whole masechta to prove it: Horayos.

I would therefore modify RMB's statement: Their proclamations do not define
what is right, but their proclamations do define our obligations. Indeed,
Halakhah *IS* a legal process, and if legal authority rests in our
rabbanim, then we're obligated to follow them. But in the abstract, this
does not prove them to be correct.

(In fact, if I'm not mistaken, if a talmid chacham *knows* that a certain
p'sak is mistaken, then he can rely on his own knowledge and violate that
p'sak even l'kula, *provided* that he does so only in private -- again to
reinforce the importance of the legal system.)

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
1 Odd spice that FIGHTS diabetes
Can this unusual "super spice" control your blood sugar and fight diabetes&#63
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/51ca3085a525c308564e6st01vuc

On 25/06/2013 4:01 PM, Simon Montagu wrote:
> (I was going to change the subject line, but "current events" fits my new topic too)
>
>  From Areivim:
>
>> It is well known that many early psakim on electricity are wrong because
>> the poskim had no idea what electricity really was.
>
> Hast du nachtgeschaut*? I have also heard this repeated, but I would like
> to see the psakim for myself inside. Does anyone have references?

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.   I recall a teshuvah (I think
Minchas Elozor, but it's been too many years for me to be sure) that forbids
saying divrei torah over the telephone.  The author writes that he had initially
assumed the telephone wires were hollow, and the sound travelled in the middle.
But he had done his due diligence and consulted an expert, who had informed him
that the wires were not hollow!  Since that was so, it must be that the sound
somehow travels along the *outside* of the wires, and they pass through filthy
alleys where one is not allowed to say torah, so by saying torah over the phone
one is exposing it to the filth along the way!


-- 
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

<<Also, I was wondering: wouldn't moving the fast day from the 9th to the
17th of Tammuz require a beis din gadol bechakhmah uveminyan compared to
Anshei Keneses haGedolah -- where AKhG included nevi'im, and no Sanhedrin
of tana'im could have?>>

The pasuk in Zecharya only lists months. Hence, moving within Tamuz is
still within the original takanah

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130626/87a9f77c/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://tinyurl.com/oscnhpf

Orthodox rabbis of Beit Hillel organization say they have found 
halachic sources allowing women to recite prayer in memory of their 
deceased parents too

A surprising new halachic ruling issued by Orthodox rabbinical 
organization Beit Hillel allows women, for the first time, to say the 
Kaddish prayer in memory of their deceased parents.

After probing the issue in the past few months, the organization's 
rabbis, both men and women, found halachic sources allowing them to 
permit an act which has been considered a taboo for hundreds of years.

See the above URL for more.

----------
This article implies that this ruling is "revolutionary."  However, I 
know for a fact that Rabbi Dr. Aaron Levine,  Z"L,  former rov of the 
YI of Ave J,  allowed women to say kaddish daily at shachris provided 
that there was a man or men who also saying kaddish.  The women 
were,  of course,  behind a mechitza.

Furthermore,  I recall davening shachris at the YI of Brookline a 
number of years ago during the week.  There was a woman behind the 
mechitza who said kaddish.

So this ruling is not allowing women to say kaddish for the first 
time!  They have said kaddish before in two places that I am familiar 
with, and I have no reason to believe that this has not occured in 
other shuls.  YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130627/d3511ad4/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 09:20:19AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://tinyurl.com/oscnhpf
>> Orthodox rabbis of Beit Hillel organization say they have found halachic 
>> sources allowing women to recite prayer in memory of their deceased 
>> parents too
...
> This article implies that this ruling is "revolutionary."  However, I  
> know for a fact that Rabbi Dr. Aaron Levine,  Z"L,  former rov of the YI 
> of Ave J,  allowed women to say kaddish daily at shachris provided that 
> there was a man or men who also saying kaddish.  The women were,  of 
> course,  behind a mechitza.

A source mentioned here in prior discussions (I believe by RYHHenkin)
was that R Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (Teshuvos Ibera 2:4) holds like this.

RYBS did not require any men saying Qaddish; a woman may say Qaddish for
a minyan of men on their own. More than that, aside from giving sevara,
RYBS reported that this was the practice in much of Lithuania, including
the Gra's shul in Vilna.

R' Aharon Soloveitchik prohibited stopping a woman from saying Qaddish,
as it would be alienating her from Yahadus for no reason.

Going to an earlier source, the Chavos Yair (#222) pasqens for a father
than his only daughter would be permitted to say Qaddish for him. And
technically, she could convene a mixed minyan to do so -- but he banned
the innovation lest mixed minyanim replace traditional minyanim in other
areas. (I was pointed to this in a discussion about Partnership Minyanim.)

In contrast, R' Ovadia Yosef pasqened 3 years ago
http://halachayomit.co.il/Default.asp?HalachaID=1302 that such a quorum
MAY be convened for the sole purpose of a daughter saying Qaddish. His
conclusion explicitly limits itself to the case where the niftar left
no sons.

The writers of Halakhah Yomit add in
http://halachayomit.co.il/QuestionDetails.aspx?ID=168 that the heter
only replies to daughters. The main point of Qaddish is only for zar'o
shel adam, and therefore only for daughters would we be meiqilim. If
r"l someone dies childless leaving only a wife and/or mother, it is
better for them to find a man to say Qaddish.

In the same piece the author states that since Birkhas haGomel was always
said by women bekhol tefutzos Yisrael, it doesn't raise the same issues
with assimilationists as Qaddish would.

So when he refers to a daughter saying Qaddish as a qulah, I don't know
if the intent is a qulah in tzenius, or in bechuqoseihem lo seileikhu.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

In Avodah V31n119, RnCL responded to my response to RLK:
>>> Why is this bothering me so much? <<<
>> Because the proponent of such a position may be a chassid shoteh? <<
> I confess that while I often highly critical of many rulings which assur
under the purported banner of tzniut, in this particular case I have a lot
of sympathy for the psak....I can really see why there is an inherent
danger in the proposed arrangement....OTOH....It is not really chassid
shoteh territory - she is in no physical danger, just a bit of
unpleasantness, but clearly it is
doing her a chessed to give her a lift <
FTR, I was offering a hava amina for RLK, not espousing my own opinion, and
I certainly agree (a) that the classic "chassid shoteh" case is one of
piquach nefesh, not of inconvenience; and (b) that there are rational
grounds for the p'saq that "so much bothered" RLK.

>  How about Shimon advertising at
work for an additional workmate (or workmates) to be in on the car lift? <
That might be one suggestion.  I was thinking that the key to the p'saq was
"regular ride" -- if Shimon had asked if he could offer future rides to
Shoshana only when the situation demanded chessed (e.g. a bad-weather
circumstance), perhaps the p'saq would be different (and if it wasn't, I
might be at least as bothered as RLK).

All the best from
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130627/6922d98b/attachment-0001.htm>

R'MBerger, quoted the writers of Halakhah Yomit saying:

"The main point of Qaddish is only for zar'o shel adam, and therefore only
for daughters would we be meiqilim. If r"l someone dies childless leaving
only a wife and/or mother, it is better for them to find a man to say
Qaddish."

The Seifa is out of sync with the Reisha.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130627/4d0216fe/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 04:08:43PM +0100, Allan Engel wrote:
: R'MBerger, quoted the writers of Halakhah Yomit saying:
: "The main point of Qaddish is only for zar'o shel adam, and therefore only
: for daughters would we be meiqilim. If r"l someone dies childless leaving
: only a wife and/or mother, it is better for them to find a man to say
: Qaddish."
: 
: The Seifa is out of sync with the Reisha.

Only if he had send "only point". He's saying (IIUC) that only a
full implementation of Qaddish justifies the qulah, and not a partial
implementation in an "i efshar" situation.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 27/06/2013 9:20 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> This article implies that this ruling is "revolutionary."

In general I find every ruling coming out of this group to be breathlessly
reported as revolutionary or unprecedented, but so far I haven't seen anything
from them that's more than mildly eyebrow-raising, if that.  They seem to be
well within the mainstream of psak, and not even on the lenient fringes.

Actually the article contradicts itself.  In the middle of asserting over
and over that it's unprecedented, we find this: ""In the United States it's
common".


>                                                           However, I
> know for a fact that Rabbi Dr. Aaron Levine, Z"L,  former rov of the
> YI of Ave J,  allowed women to say kaddish daily at shachris provided
> that there was a man or men who also saying kaddish.  The women were,
> of course,  behind a mechitza.

Ah, but how would that work in your preferred model, where only one person
says kaddish?  Would he still allow it?

In fact that seems to be the big issue among those poskim who forbid it.
There's a lot of discussion about it, and it seems that everyone agrees
that there's no problem with a woman saying kaddish per se, e.g. at the
levaya, but the concern that many poskim have is that it's not appropriate
for a woman to say it in shul, for the tzibur.  Others don't see this as
such a big problem.  But it seems that where the shul's minhag is to allow
group kaddeishim, and there are already men saying it aloud, there shouldn't
be a problem with a woman saying it along with them, quietly.

FWIW R Ahron Soloveichik paskened that while there are good arguments for
both sides, nowadays the overriding consideration should be that if you
forbid it the woman may end up going to a C or R place to say it, and
yatza secharo behefseido.

Also FWIW RMF mentions casually, "lefi tumo", that in Lita women would
sometimes come into shul to say kaddish.  He doesn't even discuss it as
an issue, he just seems to take it for granted.

The previous LR's misnamed "Memoirs" also has a casual mention of an only
daughter saying kaddish at her father's levaya, with no indication that this
was out of the ordinary.



On 27/06/2013 10:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Going to an earlier source, the Chavos Yair (#222) pasqens for a father
> than his only daughter would be permitted to say Qaddish for him. And
> technically, she could convene a mixed minyan to do so -- but he banned
> the innovation lest mixed minyanim replace traditional minyanim in other
> areas. (I was pointed to this in a discussion about Partnership Minyanim.)

Mixed minyan?!  Who mentioned such a thing?   The story happened in Amsterdam,
and nobody there objected.   Someone later asked the Chavos Yair what he
thought about it, and he wrote that he did not agree with this, and the local
authorities should have objected.  He paskens that the daughter should *not*
have been allowed to say kaddish, before a proper minyan of ten men, even
though it was a private minyan at home, not in shul.  His reason is simply
that it's against the minhag, and if it's allowed "it will weaken the power
of Jewish minhagim, which are also Torah, and each person will build a bamah
for himself according to his own opinion, and the words of the rabbis will
appear ridiculous and will be despised".

I don't know how you got the idea that anyone had proposed a mixed minyan,
or that the CY allowed it in a proper minyan.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:

>
> And how does all of this square with the original practice,  which I
> understand is actually the halacha,  that only one person says each
> kaddish?  In such a shul a woman would presumably never say kaddish.
>
>
It does not have to square with the original practice.  There are lots of
things that do not square with the original practice.  Yizkor on the
shalosh regalim is one of the more blatant ones.  The original institution
of kaddish was for yesomim who were younger than bar mitzvah who could not
be the shaliach tzibur.  The practice has evolved.

Saul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130627/85db1391/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:

>
> A surprising new halachic ruling issued by Orthodox rabbinical
> organization Beit Hillel allows women, for the first time, to say the
> Kaddish prayer in memory of their deceased parents.
>
> This article implies that this ruling is "revolutionary."  However, I know
> for a fact that Rabbi Dr. Aaron Levine,  Z"L,  former rov of the YI of Ave
> J,  allowed women to say kaddish daily at shachris provided that there was
> a man or men who also saying kaddish.  The women were,  of course,  behind
> a mechitza.
>
[SNIP]


The next paragraph had this line.

"In the United States it's common ? but in many synagogues in Israel, if a
woman wants to say Kaddish she will be silenced.

They even explain the reasoning.  Most poskim follow the Chovos Yair who
did not allow women to say kaddish even though he thought women saying
kaddish would bring nachas ruach to the deceased.  There are not too many
teshuvos written on the topic & until Rav Yehuda Henkin wrote a piece in
Hapardes, all were against women saying kaddish in shul.  Rav Henkin says
that the custom in Europe was for women to come into the men's section to
say kaddish.  Rav Henkin ruled that women should say kaddish from the
women's section and a man should say the kaddish with her.  Rav Moshe
Feinstein in Iggrot Moshe Or Chayim Part 5 #12 says the same thing as Rav
Henkin regarding the custom in Europe. RYBS also says the same thing as Rav
Henkin.

Saul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130627/2a7b2e97/attachment-0001.htm>

At 10:18 AM 6/27/2013, Saul Guberman wrote:
>The next paragraph had this line.
>
>"In the United States it's common ? but in many 
>synagogues in Israel, if a woman wants to say Kaddish she will be silenced.

Truth be told,  I did not see this.


>They even explain the reasoning.  Most poskim 
>follow the Chovos Yair who did not allow women 
>to say kaddish even though he thought women 
>saying kaddish would bring nachas ruach to the 
>deceased.  There are not too many teshuvos 
>written on the topic & until Rav Yehuda Henkin 
>wrote a piece in Hapardes, all were against 
>women saying kaddish in shul.  Rav Henkin says 
>that the custom in Europe was for women to come 
>into the men's section to say kaddish.  Rav 
>Henkin ruled that women should say kaddish from 
>the women's section and a man should say the 
>kaddish with her.  Rav Moshe Feinstein in Iggrot 
>Moshe Or Chayim Part 5 #12 says the same thing 
>as Rav Henkin regarding the custom in Europe. 
>RYBS also says the same thing as Rav Henkin.

And how does all of this square with the original 
practice,  which I understand is actually the 
halacha,  that only one person says each 
kaddish?  In such a shul a woman would presumably never say kaddish.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130627/2b988941/attachment-0001.htm>

In contrast, R' Ovadia Yosef pasqened 3 years ago
http://halachayomit.co.il/Default.asp?HalachaID=1302 that such a quorum
MAY be convened for the sole purpose of a daughter saying Qaddish. His
conclusion explicitly limits itself to the case where the niftar left
no sons.
==============================
So I wonder in a case where the son is no longer r"l shomer shabbat but
wants to "honor" his father by saying kaddish, would we say that the shomer
torah umitzvot daughter shouldn't say kaddish?
She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,
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.

 R' Meir asks a very important theological question:
 "But, does this then constitute a sin that deserves such a frightening
 consequence?"

 The same question could be asked a thousand times about a thousand
 different frightening penalties and punishments for sins that certainly don't
 appear any worse than the meraglim stating what they thought. If we take
 the Torah literally, we will find ourselves asking the same questions that
 R' Meir is asking. A good example is that one who commits suicide can't 
 even be given a kosher burial. Is that a sin that deserves such a frightening 
 consequence? However, if the person is ruled insane or mentally disturbed
 the consequence would not apply here. This all shows the complexities and
 intricacies of Torah.
 ri 
Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea of instincts.
Rabbi Israel Salanter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130627/c8f029d9/attachment-0001.htm>

The Mishna Brurah in O"C 233:11 explains the reason why we allow a tzibbur
to daven mincha right before shkia and maariv right after. In the past I've
asked if there is a later maariv that one knows will take place and one
knows there will still be 10 for the post shkia maariv, should one go to
the later maariv (or is there no difference).  Now assuming there is a
difference, what is the calculation if one is unsure whether they will get
10 for the later maariv?  Similarly what if one knows they will get 10 but
it is likely that there will not be 10 davening (i.e. a few leftovers who
davened at the post shkia maariv will be learning in the room).  According
to R' Moshe (O"C 1:28), this does not constitute tfilah btzibbur so is one
better off davening tfila btzibbur at a less appropriate time or taking a
chance that he will get it later?
She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130627/045e44b9/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 120
***************************************

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.)