Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 103

Tue, 08 Jul 2014

• 1. Rachel Fraenkel saying kaddish over her son (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: Rachel Fraenkel saying kaddish over her son (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: Rachel Fraenkel saying kaddish over her son (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: How many people can a Para Aduma be metaher? (Marty Bluke)
• 5. Re: Rachel Fraenkel saying kaddish over her son (Saul Guberman)
• 6. Re: Rachel Fraenkel saying kaddish over her son (Kenneth Miller)
• 7. Re: Rachel Fraenkel saying kaddish over her son (Rich, Joel)
• 8. Re: Rachel Fraenkel saying kaddish over her son (Ben Waxman)
• 9. Re: How many people can a Para Aduma be metaher? (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: How many people can a Para Aduma be metaher? (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Kevod hatzibur (Rabbi Y. H. Henkin)
• 12. woen wearing Tefillin - Arukh Hashulchan (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: woen wearing Tefillin - Arukh Hashulchan (Kenneth Miller)
• 14. Re: Darwinism (Rafael Jason Hecht)
• 15. Darwinism (Prof. Levine)

At 03:51 PM 7/3/2014, R. Eli Turkel wrote:

I am sending this to Avodah at the suggestion of the moderators.
 >
 >The Mourner's Kaddish has never before been recited in public in
 >Israel by an Orthodox woman of such stature and in front of cameras.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >see
 >
 ><http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.602639?v=
 >378FC90AD7003024C1C4F396DD469F30>http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.602639?v=
 >378FC90AD7003024C1C4F396DD469F30 

 >

The latest issue of Hakirah has an article about women saying
kaddish.  According to the article this is not a new thing.  In the
past women said kaddish in shul in Europe.  Part of the article is at

http://www.hakirah.org/Vol17Wolowelsky.pdf

The question that comes to my mind is that Mrs. Frenkel and her son
have parents.  Her husband may also have parents.  If so,  how can
they say kaddish?  My impression is that if a person has both of
his/her parents living,  then s/he does not say kaddish.

When my 15 year-old son died, my parents were still alive.  I asked
my father-in-law to say kaddish for me son which he did.

YL




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140704/a03839f8/attachment-0001.htm>

The question that comes to my mind is that Mrs. Frenkel and her son
have parents.  Her husband may also have parents.  If so,  how can
they say kaddish?  My impression is that if a person has both of
his/her parents living,  then s/he does not
//:::


The usual aiui is that one asks permission from the parents.

Kol tuv
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140704/0b7fe658/attachment-0001.htm>

At 10:06 AM 7/4/2014, Rich, Joel wrote:
>The usual aiui is that one asks permission from the parents.

My understanding is that if one parent is deceased,  then one has to 
ask the parent who is alive for permission to say kaddish.  If the 
living parent says no, then one cannot say kaddish.

However, this case is different in that both parents of the mother 
are alive and, of course,  both parents of the son who said kaddish are alive.

I can only wonder why one of the grandfathers did not say 
kaddish,  assuming that they are alive,  which I believe they are.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140704/4497cedb/attachment-0001.htm>

The Aruch Laner (Succah 21a) offers the following reason why they made 7
Para Adumahs during the time of the second Beis Hamikdash. He posits that
Parah Adumahs are very rare, it is very hard to find an animal that meets
all the criteria. Therefore he says that whenever they did find one they
used it even if they did not need the ashes. In other words, the reason why
there were 7 Para Adumahs during the time of the second Beis Hamikdash is
that 7 suitable animals were found. If more animals had been found there
would have been more, if less animals had been found there would have been
less. The Parah Adumas were not done specifically out of need.

However, this does not explain the period from Moshe to Ezra:
1. How could 1 Parah Aduma last for 800 years?
2. Why didn't they make more Parah Adumas even if they didn't need them
like they did in the second Beis Hamikdash? It is logical to assume that
Parah Adumas were as rare in that period as they were in the period of the
second Beis Hamikdash and therefore whenever they discovered a suitable
animal they should have used it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140706/563cc9b2/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> The question that comes to my mind is that Mrs. Frenkel and her son
> have parents. Her husband may also have parents. If so, how can
> they say kaddish? My impression is that if a person has both of
> his/her parents living, then s/he does not say kaddish.

The Ramah in respona 118 allows a grandchild to say kaddish for a
grandparent if the parent gives him permission. The general Ashkenaz
minhag brought by many is that if the parent is alive the child should
not/may not say kaddish. The reasons being disrespect, showing that they
may wish their parents dead, ayin hara, people thinking that they are an
orphan. Some people and Rabbinim are very makpid on this and will not
allow anyone with living parents to say kaddish. If the parents give
permission to the child, the child can say kaddish for anyone.

R' Yitzchok Levine wrote:

> My understanding is that if one parent is deceased, then one has
> to ask the parent who is alive for permission to say kaddish. If
> the living parent says no, then one cannot say kaddish.

That sounds like pretty reasonable derech eretz and kibud horim to me.

> However, this case is different in that both parents of the mother
> are alive and, of course, both parents of the son who said kaddish
> are alive.

And I think it is fair to presume that all of those people gave permission
to do so. It sounds similar to when my grandfather was niftar, and the
other three grandparents, and both of my parents, not only gave me
permission to do so, but they were very happy that I offered.

> I can only wonder why one of the grandfathers did not say kaddish,
> assuming that they are alive, which I believe they are.

Ummm... Maybe it's because a parent has more grief from the loss of a child than a grandparent has over the loss of a grandchild?

Another answer: Maybe the grandfathers *did* say kaddish as well?

There's something I'm obviously not understanding here. Is kaddish said only when absolutely required, and only by those who are absolutely required to say it?

I do understand that there are some people who would feel odd if they'd say
Kaddish Shalem Bli Tiskabel while their parents are still alive, but I can
also understand that there are others who would feel that to be outweighed
by their need to reaffirm their emunah in the face of such loss.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
The End of the "Made-In-China" Era
The impossible (but real) technology that could make you impossibly rich.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/53b722062762a22056020st01vuc

The usual aiui is that one asks permission from the parents.

My understanding is that if one parent is deceased,  then one has to ask
the parent who is alive for permission to say kaddish.	If the living
parent says no, then one cannot say kaddish.

However, this case is different in that both parents of the mother are alive and, of course,  both parents of the son who said kaddish are alive.

I can only wonder why one of the grandfathers did not say kaddish,  assuming that they are alive,  which I believe they are.

YL
 The whole Kaddish thing seems mostly minhag. The antecedent in the rabbi
 Akiva Medrash makes it clear that the direct descendant is the primary
 choice. IMHO Kaddish is an example of klal Yisrael infusing a prayer with
 ancillary significance, afaik no one gets what r'hs would call the heebie
 jeebies by saying Kaddish shaleim or the Kaddish at a siyum.
I assume the concern of a parent being asked might be ayin hara (although
it's hard to see anyone being jealous ) or al tiftach peh lsatan. I imagine
this concern could be overcome by the realizTion that it would serve a
therapeutic need for their child.
Kol tuv
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140705/9eba6dd2/attachment-0001.htm>

1) Because they aren't aren't in aveilut.
2) Because the parent (probably) wanted to express their feelings 
themselves.  If there isn't clear halachic objection, just a practice, 
then why not if this gives them comfort?

Ben
> On 7/4/2014 4:43 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
>> I can only wonder why one of the grandfathers did not say kaddish, 
>> assuming that they are alive, which I believe they are. 
>

On 6/07/2014 4:49 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:

> However, this does not explain the period from Moshe to Ezra:
> 1. How could 1 Parah Aduma last for 800 years?
> 2. Why didn't they make more Parah Adumas even if they didn't need
> them like they did in the second Beis Hamikdash? It is logical to
> assume that Parah Adumas were as rare in that period as they were in
> the period of the second Beis Hamikdash and therefore whenever they
> discovered a suitable animal they should have used it.

1. Maybe in the first BHMK everyone was more careful about tahara, and as a
matter of course tried not to become temei meis if they could avoid it.

2. There were fewer (or no) rabbinic laws that extend tum'as meis to more people.

3. Once the kingdoms split the northerners were unable to come to the BHMK.

4. How much ash does one really need?  The tahara ceremonies before the regel
were probably done en masse, with everyone who arrived in time starting their
count together, and getting sprinkled together on the 3rd and 7th days. Thus
they all used one dose.  Maybe in the 1st BHMK it was rarer for people to come
to the BHMK on non-regel occasions.


-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond

If a tahor person sprinkles Parah Adumah water on several people at 
once, and one of the several people is already tahor, does the water 
make that person tamei while making the rest tahor?

On 7/6/2014 8:35 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> 4. How much ash does one really need?  The tahara ceremonies before 
> the regel
> were probably done en masse, with everyone who arrived in time 
> starting their
> count together, and getting sprinkled together on the 3rd and 7th 
> days. Thus
> they all used one dose.  Maybe in the 1st BHMK it was rarer for people 
> to come
> to the BHMK on non-regel occasions.
>
>

    Rabbis Aryeh and Dov Frimer in vol. 32:99 refer to "scores of poskim"
    who hold tzniut to be a, or the, explanation why kevod hatzibur
    prohibits aliyot nashim.
    But no rishon says this explicitly, while at least two say the
    opposite: "Ishah lo tikra  baTorah mishum kevod hatzibur, aval pritzuta
    leika." (Sefer haMeorot to Berachot 45a, and Rabbeinu Manoach on the
    Rambam Hilchot Berachot 5:7)
    When achronim haven't seen the rishonim, halachah is not like the achronim, and one certainly can't ignore the rishonim.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140620/2980a789/attachment.htm>

From Rabbi Broyde on seforim blog

1. We are very concerned about physical cleanliness and thus no men wear
*tefillin *other than during morning prayer time when they are obligated to.

2.     Men are obligated and women are not.

3. Thus, just like we discourage men from wearing *tefillin* all day long,
we discourage women from wearing *tefillin *even during prayer, since they
are not obligated.

4.     But (just like it is not prohibited for a man who is careful to wear
his *tefillin *all day long
<http://p.feedbl
itz.com/t3.asp?/57678/10106312/0/file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/
Ricky_2/Desktop/What_is_Bothering_the_Aruch_Hashulchal_final.docx#_ftn3>
),
it is not prohibited for a woman to wear *tefillin* if she is careful.
Only exceptional and rare women are careful in that way.

see
http://seforim.blogspot.co.il/2014/07/what-is-bothering-aruch-has
hulchan.html
for full article

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140708/d38452a7/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Eli Turkel quoted Rabbi Broyde:

> But (just like it is not prohibited for a man who is careful to
> wear his tefillin all day long), it is not prohibited for a woman
> to wear tefillin if she is careful.

But I think Rabbi Broyde could have made his argument even stronger,
because he seems to consider only two durations: Wearing the tefillin only
for Shacharis, or wearing them all day long. If he would add a third case,
namely wearing the tefillin for a short time after Shacharis while
learning, we'd see that this is not merely "not prohibited", but it is
accepted, or even *recommended*.

Back in January 2014, I posted the Mishneh Brurah 37:7, where he writes:

> Anshei maaseh have the minhag to learn after davening, in tefillin.

But that's the MB's opinion. What about the Aruch Hashulchan, which was the focus of R' Broyde's blog? It turns out that AH 37:3 says similarly:

> It seems from their words that one who wants nowadays to wear
> them all day, confident that he will not pass gas or take his
> mind off of them, should nevertheless *not* wear them all day.
> But in my humble opinion, I don't see it that way. We've heard
> that there are some capable individuals, and if the previous
> generations had people who could wear them all day, then
> nowadays there are also some individuals who can learn a bit
> after davening with them on.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Odd Carb-Hormone Trick
1 EASY tip to increase fat-burning, lower blood sugar & decrease fat storage
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/53bbeceeb4a626cee7d10st03vuc

Interesting as Darwin was a contemporary of R' Hirsch at the time.

Best Regards,

Rafi Hecht
*rhe...@gmail.com* <rhe...@gmail.com>

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


<http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rafihecht>
*Facebook:* *http://www.facebook.com/rhecht*
<http://www.facebook.com/rhecht>
*Twitter:* *https://www.twitter.com/#!/rafihecht*
<https://www.twitter.com/#!/rafihecht>
*Personal Site:* *www.rafihecht.com* <http://www.rafihecht.com>



On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:

>  The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bamidbar 25: 3
>
> *And Israel attached itself to the Ba?al Pe?or, and the anger of *God
>
> *was stirred against Israel. *The cult of Pe?or is an illustration of the
> type of Darwinism that glories
> in man?s descent to the level of the beast, where, stripping himself of
> his Divinely-given nobility, he comes to regard himself as merely a higher
> species of animal.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140708/81656d1a/attachment.htm>

The following is from RSRH's commentary on Bamidbar 25: 3

And Israel attached itself to the Ba'al Pe'or, and the anger of God 
was stirred against Israel.

The cult of Pe'or is an illustration of the type of Darwinism that glories
in man's descent to the level of the beast, where, stripping himself of
his Divinely-given nobility, he comes to regard himself as merely a higher
species of animal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20140708/ceef3758/attachment.htm>

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



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


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


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

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.)