Home / Legacy /

News & Links

 


Living Inclusion: Why our Orthodox Synagogue Hosted an LGBT Training Institute
Abraham the Patriarch of Three Great Religions? Nonsense, Argues a New Book
Walk Down the Jewish Chocolate Trail
Hebrew-language charter school approved for L.A.
Separation of Church and State, Disaster Edition
Winnipeg rabbis criticize JCC early Shabbat opening
Pope on Social Networking: The Virtual is Real
How My Therapist Changed My Marriage | Everyday Jewish Living
Nechemya Weberman’s 103-Year Sentence Is Clumsy Slap at Ultra-Orthodox Jews
UK Haredi chief caught telling alleged victim not to tell police about abuse
The Tangled History of Shuls and Real Estate
SALT Friday

Rush To Judgment
Bringing Hebrew School Into The 21st Century
Rabbi will pay boy’s family $6,000 to settle assault lawsuit
The Real Story Behind Tu b’Shvat
Yesh Atid’s Lipman to trade US citizenship for MK card
The Tangled History of Shuls and Real Estate
Notice Of Appeal Filed In Bris Milah Suit
SALT Thursday

Winning The Ultra-Orthodox Vote
R Jeffrey Woolf: We have a great opportunity here
Weberman Gets 103 Years for Sex Abuse, and Satmars Say ‘Whoa’
What If Reform’s Leader Had Gone To JTS?
Where is New York’s Jewish population growing?
‘Jews live in fear in Europe’, European Parliament president says
The year of “Sink or Swim” for the Kosher Restaurant
Why America Has No Chief Rabbi
English is Absent and Math Doesn’t Count at Brooklyn’s Biggest Yeshivas
Emergence Christianity Comes to Memphis
Young Jews rebelling against paying dues
SALT Wednesday

Weberman Gets 103 Years in Orthodox Abuse Trial
Gun Control, Halakhah, and History
Details of Lubavitcher Rebbe’s Rabbinical Ordination Authenticated
New study shows US Jews firmly liberal on economic issues
Parents Face Dilemmas When Jewish Schools Close
Hope for the Gay Undergrad
Israel sees slight drop in Jewish immigration
Satmar rebbe: Voting forbidden
Senior haredi rabbis: Voting a ‘holy duty’
R Y Adlerstein: Rime of the Modern Kiruv Mariner
Kosher Internet Offers Religious Jews The Path To A Job
SALT Tuesday

Guilty pleas in Orthodox abuse cases offer hope
How Lord Sacks came to be chief
Faith and Family (After Divorce)
We needed substance, we got slogans
Jewish camps to offer a new tech on summer fun
Hebrew University Embraces English, But At What Cost?
Israel’s Other Impending Election
A Nebbish Is Born
Parental Involvement Can Help in Choosing Marriage Partners, Experts Say
SALT Monday

Prior news & links posts
Rules: link

 

Share this Post

 

Related Posts

About the author

Gil Student

Rabbi Gil Student is the founder, publisher and editor-in-chief of Torah Musings.

 
The opinions and facts here are presented solely by the author. Torah Musings assumes no responsibility for them. Please address religious questions to your rabbi.
 

88 Responses

  1. IH says:

    Surprised you did not pick up the release of the UJA Fed’s Geographical Demographic analysis. A link to the report is contained in the NYT story: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/nyregion/reversing-past-trend-new-yorks-jewish-population-rises.html

    I shared a quick illustrative excerpt yesterday: “let’s look at the Forest Hills/Rego Park/Kew Gardens (11374, 11375 & 11415) area. There are 29,700 Jewish households: 11% Orthodox, 23% Conservative, 13% Reform, 15% Non-Denominational and 39% Secular. But, despite that only 11% are Orthodox, 48% usually/always light Shabbat Candles and 49% keep a kosher household.”

  2. joel rich says:

    Question- when a mentch like Stan Musial dies, are you allowed to say ” a real mentch died today”?
    KT

  3. “Hebrew University Embraces English, But At What Cost?”

    i’m sympathetic to opponents of this, but i understand the practical benefits. one other benefit that wasn’t mentioned (unless i missed it) is that it makes israeli scholarship more accesible to the 99.9% of the world that doesn’t read hebrew.

  4. IH:

    “But, despite that only 11% are Orthodox, 48% usually/always light Shabbat Candles and 49% keep a kosher household”

    so what’s your point? that there is a spectrum from orthodox jews to idol-worshipping, treyf-eating, intermarried jews? what’s the chidush?

    also, how is a kosher household defined?

  5. “Jewish camps to offer a new tech on summer fun”

    a lot of the article was about connecting parents to kids with streaming, etc. and this is fine.
    but i think the introduction of technology-related activities for kids themselves is a bad step. it will make camp even more expensive than it already is. and kids (frum kids in particular) already have 10 months of the year to grow obese and lazy

  6. IH says:

    Abba — the point is that people should look at the data and, perhaps, expand their horizons about the diversity of Jewish life in NYC (beyond the Orthodox בועה).

  7. (“will make camp even more expensive than it already is” = some MO camps already cost more for 7 weeks than some brooklyn yeshivos do for 10 months)

  8. joel rich says:

    r’IH
    Which is why as Gold Hat said (almost) “Data? We ain’t got no Data. We don’t need no Data! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ Data!” because if we did we would likely hear from John Maynard Keynes”When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir?”

    KT

  9. ruvie says:

    “Parental Involvement Can Help in Choosing Marriage Partners, Experts Say” (btw, the real title of the article is: Modern Lessons From Arranged Marriages):
    - how funny is it that a rep of ou comments – the only observant jewish commentator in the article- on the positive aspects of arrange marriages. is there a new department at the ou that we are unaware of?
    what next the positive aspects of shotgun marriages?

  10. Hoffa Araujo says:

    joel – don’t forget Earl Weaver (I have his autograph so I’m a bit partial).

    How do you know that Stan Musial was a mentch?

  11. ruvie says:

    reb joel – “badges” – do not profane great film classics.

  12. joel rich says:

    R’ Ruvie-my version of torah umadda!
    R’ Hoffa-http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/21/sports/baseball/stan-musial-substance-over-sizzle.html?ref=sports (I actually remember his rep from back in the day)
    KT

  13. ruvie says:

    from the previous news and links with regards to the discussion of rav moshe’s tesuvahs on answering amen and giving aliyahs/kibudim to conservative/reform rabbis and r’ kalmanofsky article: blessings of a heretic:

    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=918&st=&pgnum=237
    http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=919&st=&pgnum=314
    http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=919&st=&pgnum=315

    it seems (to this layman and am haareretz) that rav moshe had a need to label all hetrodox rabbis as koferim and therefore the category of apikorus/min applies where they do not merit/allowed even gelilahn let alone an aliyah or being allowed to say amen to any of their berachot (even NOT to be yotzei any obligation for oneself). hence, the need to a new source for r’ kalmanofsky correctly points out that previous sources used by others in the past have modifiers/corrections from the gra and tosofot yom tov in their understanding of the rambam and SA (as well as they may on a simple perusal contradict mishna,talmud and tosefta).

    the issue that r’ feinstein brings in is theological belief as a litmus test. hence, the example of the sefer torah of min/apikurus must be burnt fits the bill. its not the simple issue of lishma but as the Rambam points out (yesodai ha-torah 6:8) “its a mitzvah to burn it so that no remembrance will be left of the heretics or their deeds.” for if its was just lishmah then why in the same halacha ramabam says any kitvei kodesh written by a non-jew is to be buried (and not burnt)? lishmah is not the defining reason to burn a sefer torah (see rashi in giitin 45b on rab nachmun’s opinion -[d"h yisareif] for its written for idolatrous purposes and min is defined as an idol worshipper. btw, a sefer torah written by a religious jew (non-heretic) not lishmah is also pasul and is no proof for the argument. perhaps r’ yishmael (bavli shabbat 116a) offers a clue in a kol v’chomer on erasing hashem’s name in the waters of the sotah. hashem’s name can be erased or destroyed for greater purposes like shalom bayit. here – a sefer torah writtem by a min can also be destroyed for peace with our father in heaven- a greater good is after all involved here.

    what’s novel is rav moshe askews r’ ettlinger tinok shenishbah argument in non shomrei torah receiving aliyot. see the 3rd teshuvah above. he actually equates those that are mechalel shabat in public to kofer unless you know they are only doing it “l’teiavon” (then they can get aliyot and you can answer amen)and are actually koferin (like those conservative rabbis). i think this is purposeful for obvious reasons. he doesn’t want the comparison to a tinok shenishbah for then they are automatically presumed to be not heretics with no litmus test and so to are conservative rabbis not heretics since they do believe in God like the the mechaleil shabbat(even though they may have different views of authorship of chumash).

  14. zalman says:

    Rav Aharon Lichtenstein endorses Bayit Yehudi.
    http://www.kipa.co.il/now/50669.html (Hebrew)

  15. IH says:

    Rav Ovadia Yosef had the better soundbite, though :-)

    קוראים אותם ‘הבית היהודי’, זה לא בית של יהודים, זה בית של גויים, הם רוצים לעקור את התורה, לעשות נישואים אזרחיים, אסור לבחור בהם, אלה דתיים אלה? מי שבוחר בהם הוא כופר בתורה

  16. ruvie says:

    IH – can one say amen to their berachot?

  17. joel rich says:

    R’ Ruvie,
    I was going to ask if one can read their books!
    KT

  18. Scott says:

    How do we know Stan the Man was a mensch? See here:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1192172/index.htm

    Unfortunately, the race-obsessed NY Times devoted an inordinate part of its obituary to the integration of baseball, in which Musial took no particular part.

  19. ruvie says:

    reb joel – read? “burn, baby, burn”

  20. joel rich says:

    R’ ruvie,
    Makes me think of disco inferno!
    Kt

  21. Steve Brizel says:

    The following linked ad was banned in Isarel.

  22. Steve Brizel says:

    Ruvie wrote in part:

    “it seems (to this layman and am haareretz) that rav moshe had a need to label all hetrodox rabbis as koferim and therefore the category of apikorus/min applies where they do not merit/allowed even gelilahn let alone an aliyah or being allowed to say amen to any of their berachot”

    Reread the sources that I cited yesterday-if anyone in the 20th Century deserved the appellation, it was the heterodox movement’s clergy with respect to their stances with respect to Halacha and Mesorah.

  23. IH says:

    Steve — for more on the Shas ad, see: http://menachemmendel.net/blog/wait-youre-not-jewish/

    Also, Ha’aretz reports that Eretz Nehederet did a spoof of it, described thus: “The Eretz Nehederet skit chose to go “behind the scenes” as the commercial was filmed. After the groom tells the Russian bride “What, you’re not Jewish?” she replies with a scathing attack on the groom and, by extension, Shas and their spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef: “What, you don’t have a job, you didn’t learn English or math, you didn’t serve in the army, you have more kids than you can afford, and you do everything a 92-year-old guy in a dress tells you to?” Shas Minister Eli Yishai, playing a director, bursts in and interrupts her, telling her to stick to the script. He says the election board, however has complained that the commercial is “too primitive” and it must be fixed.

    He does so by replacing the fax machine with an iPad.

    Mission accomplished.”

  24. IH says:

    if anyone in the 20th Century deserved the appellation, it was the heterodox movement’s clergy with respect to their stances with respect to Halacha and Mesorah.

    That is just ignorant. It would be like me taking an example of Charedi rabbinical excess and tarring all Orthodoxy with it.

    Get over it — the 20th century cultural intramurals are just harmful baggage these days.

  25. Steve Brizel says:

    IH-Take a look at the stances taken by CJ and RJ’s rabbinical leadership on all of the critical issues. You obviously have nothing decent to say about Charedim and their spiritual leaders, but noone ever accused them of not being faithful to Halacha and Mesorah. Like it or not, halachic and halachic differences cannot be smoothed over by saying “I’m Jewish, you’re Jewish, and our views on Halacha and Hashkafa are irrelevant.”

  26. Steve Brizel says:

    IH -I heard that the ad in question was banned as “racist.”

  27. Steve Brizel says:

    Scott wrote:

    “Unfortunately, the race-obsessed NY Times devoted an inordinate part of its obituary to the integration of baseball, in which Musial took no particular part”

    IIRC, the article noted that Musial and his roommate, Red Schoeindeinst, unlike other players on other teams, did not engage in racist catcalls against Jacky Robinson.

  28. Scott says:

    Yes, but the obituarist, Richard Goldstein, could have “said better.” The SI article linked to above says that Musial went into the Dodgers’ locker room after a game to apologize to Dodgers pitcher Joe Black for racist taunts delivered by Musial’s teammates.

  29. Scott says:

    Yes, but the obituarist, Richard Goldstein, could have “said better.” According to the SI article linked to above, Musial visited the Dodgers’ locker room after a game to apologize to Dodgers pitcher Joe Black for racist taunts delivered by Musial’s teammates.

  30. IH says:

    I heard that the ad in question was banned as “racist.”

    And?

    I gather you haven’t bothered to look it up, so the legal definition of “racism” in Israel is: “The persecution, humiliation, degradation, manifestation of enmity, hatred or violence, or causing of strife toward a public or parts of the population due to color or racial affiliation or ethno-national origin.” (Article 144A of the Penal Code)

  31. Noam Stadlan says:

    Steve- I am sure that I am not the only one but I wouldn’t want your assertion to go unchallenged. When people ignore the Mitzvot bein adam l’chavero in favor if chumrot bein adam laMakom, they are violating Halacha and changing our Mesorah. When people claim that certain well accepted Hashkafic positions are now heresy, they are deviating from the mesorah. Read R. Henkin’s review of R. Falk’s Oz v’hadar levusha where he shows that R Falk just makes stuff up. You would call that heresy if it was on the left. Not following the rules happens a lot on the right as well. Except that some are unwilling to point it out. In addition, those on the right claim to be the sole arbiter of what the rules are, so if you believe in that, they never can in fact violate the rules of psak, since whatever rules they used are Official rules.

  32. Ruvie says:

    Steve b. – no reason to post if you have nothing of substance to say about my analysis. It’s all about keeping the heterodox away from the orthodox in communal settings. It was an innovation in taking a category dealing with scribes and Sefer Torah and applying to heterodox beliefs. It’s all about exclusion of people with heterodox beliefs.

  33. IH says:

    You know, Steve’s comment on “racism” in Israel made me realize something about many of his comments and the frustration many of us have in interacting with him. When I was an executive in the UK for a multi-national company, I would get about a call a month from one of my American colleagues to discuss the possibility of doing something the company did in the US that did not make any sense in the European business environment. Invariably these calls would come to closure when the American sighed “why can’t they just do it like us”.

    It occurs to me that much of Steve’s argumentation is less rooted in ideology, per se, than it is rooted in the ideological context in which he was trained and understands. Whether it be politics, halacha or haskkafa, the endpoint for Steve remains “why can’t they just do it like us”.

  34. joel rich says:

    r’ih,
    without commenting on the particulars of the case at hand, I have noticed anecdotally in my interactions both within and without the frum world that there are quite a few folks (I often wonder %s and what are the reasons within demographic subgroups) who can’t or won’t see things through someone else’s lenses. I’m not saying they should agree, just that they should see – it makes for better results imho.
    KT

  35. joel rich says:

    My as yet not approved comment on c-c:
    In a recent navi shiur (review soon to be posted on hirhurim – audioroundup) rabbi reisman said (my summary):
    J-48 – Making Room for Geirus
    R’Reisman posits an interesting theory – most geirim decide on geirut due to intellectual reasons (emunah chakira) while most FFB’s are connected by emunah pshuta (defined by mesorah/tradition) so there is a natural divide. [I wonder if data supports this theory] In any event, FFB’s should better appreciate the challenges faced by geirim and “feel the love” [my summary – cue Rudimental]

    I’m not sure if this holds true for kiruv, but IMHO it has even greater implications for inreach, at least to people who already know what a shabbat chulent is. using discredited intellectual approaches will not IMHO work in the long term (see earlier posts on houses built on sheker)

    KT

  36. jo says:

    You can get more of a background on Rav Ovadia’s comment here:

    http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=300276

  37. IH says:

    http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/we-have-found-enemy-and-enemy-us-rethinking-rav-sol

    “The Rav conceptualized this arrangement as maintaining the unity of the covenant of the am, while maintaining the integrity of traditional learning and practice. The experience of the past 60 years shows, however, the corrosive effects of this solution. There no longer is a common enemy that unites all Jews. What is left is an Orthodoxy that claims exclusive possession of the tradition and of the people, and a non-Orthodox world that has little cohesion forced upon it from outside and fewer tools to explore, waning attachment to, and less and less knowledge or understanding of, the testimony of the tradition to nourish it from the inside. The result has been disintegration of the larger sphere, and a failure of the inner sphere to recognize and address the breaking of the covenant of the am. More practically, it deprives those in the larger non-traditional sphere from exposure to the values of living and learning in a Torah-centered world; and it deprives those in the Torah world of the opportunity to spread those same values to the majority of the people to whom the Sabbath afternoon prayer refers – that is, to make “a unique people on earth” a reality.”

    HT: JID

  38. Skeptic says:

    What does Marc Shapiro say about the Rebbe’s ordination from the Seridei Eish? I seem to recall he discussed the new evidence but wasn’t convinced? Anyone familiar?

  39. Skeptic says:

    Ah, here is the link from Shapiro from August 2008, section 4, from which the Chabad article borrowed quotes without citation:

    http://seforim.blogspot.com/2009/09/marc-b-shapiro-responses-to-comments.html

    In particular, he writes:

    “Although there is probably some exaggeration in the details of the story they tell, they report being told by Weinberg that he indeed gave semikhah to the Rebbe, and the circumstances of how this came about (including requiring that the Rebbe come to some of his shiurim at the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary).”

    But the Chabad article obviously doesn’t consider the possibility of exaggeration.

  40. Simcha says:

    Though I know Wikipedia is unrealiable without a quoted reference, it states in the article on the Rogatchover Gaon that the Lubavitcher rebbe received semicha directly from him. Is this the “esteemed authority” referred to in the article? I wonder why, if so, this is not explicity stated. Is there any outside source that he received semicha from R. G.? Just wondering.

  41. Nachum says:

    I’ve learned to trust nothing on Wikipedia about Chabad.

  42. Steve Brizel says:

    Ruvie wrote:

    “Steve b. – no reason to post if you have nothing of substance to say about my analysis. It’s all about keeping the heterodox away from the orthodox in communal settings. It was an innovation in taking a category dealing with scribes and Sefer Torah and applying to heterodox beliefs. It’s all about exclusion of people with heterodox beliefs.”

    Simple question-why is a Mchalel Shabbos Pasul Ledus and viewed as Dino KAum in many halachic circumstances?

  43. joel rich says:

    http://www.amazon.com/Searching-Zion-Quest-African-Diaspora/dp/0802120032 (was reviewed in today’s WSJ)
    “At the age of twenty-three, award-winning writer Emily Raboteau traveled to Israel to visit her childhood best friend. While her friend appeared to have found a place to belong, Raboteau could not yet say the same for herself”

    Masiach lfi tumah -oy
    KT

  44. IH says:

    Since Conservative Rabbis are held in such high esteem here, I thought it amusing to find this post on Menachem Mendel, rather than on Hirhurim:

    The Talmud Wins Big in the Knesset Elections

    The 19th Knesset will include Dr. Ruth Calderon, who completed her PhD in Talmud at Hebrew University and was the founder of Beit Midrash Elul and Alma College. The topic of her dissertation was “Literary Tropes in the Aggadic narratives of the Babylonian Talmud.” When interviewed on Channel Two News she was asked if Talmud was a good preparation for politics, and her answer was that it was a very good preparation since, in part, the Talmud addresses how to build a society. Dr. Calderon, along with her fellow new MK’s Rabbi Dov Lipman and Dr. Aliza Lavie, will surely be bringing different voices that address Judaism and Jewish texts to more Israelis.

    http://menachemmendel.net/blog/the-talmud-wins-big-in-the-knesset-elections/

  45. IH says:

    Regarding What If Reform’s Leader Had Gone To JTS?, I attended this event last week which was billed as “Pluralism and the Future of American Jewry”. It was a dud.

    After an overly long introduction, I was actually pleasantly surprised by the open, warm and informative responses to the first question where each panelist described his/her journey to the Rabbinate – the content of Gary Rosenblatt’s piece — which would have amply served to explore cross-denominational out of the box thinking about the challenging issues for the remainder of the evening. BTW, Rosenblatt didn’t relate the best and most enigmatic comment in that round: R. Ellenson declaring that, at heart, he was an “Orthodox Kaplanian”. [For those that missed it, R. Ellenson had just announced his retirement in 2014.]

    Sadly, the moderator was inept and rather than picking up on to what was said, he ignored the panelists willingness, nay desire, to break through their boundaries and, instead, asked two further questions that stuck to well-rehearsed issues that pushed the panelists back into their denomination scripts. What a missed opportunity!

    As a reminder the Ramath Orah discussion 9 months ago, on this topic, with Rabbis Berman, Schorsch and Yoffie can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjBmAxQYeEQ

  46. ruvie says:

    Steve b. – “Simple question-why is a Mchalel Shabbos Pasul Ledus and viewed as Dino KAum in many halachic circumstances?”
    there are many other reasons why one can be pasul leadut – charging interest on loans or gambling (even eating food in the street[like a dog] kiddushin 40b.
    i don’t understand why this is relevant to the issue at hand. you just make the case stronger that rav moshe arguments with regards to hetrodox rabbis is just polemics for they do not even do any acts like michaleil shabbat to pasul them – they just question mosaic authorship while being believers in God. why would they be less than a samaritan or non jew whom you must answer amen to when they invoke God’s name? why are their words worthless and not words? its not even the reality of the situation? the analogy to burning a sefer torah of a heretic seems to forced and not comparable.

  47. joel rich says:


    Yair Lapid’s Speech at the Haredi Law Track, Kiryat Ono College

    Worth it’s own post
    KT

  48. Tal Benschar says:

    “Winning The Ultra-Orthodox Vote”

    What is the chiddush here? Shas always got more than UTJ, about twice as many. Anything different about this last election?

  49. Hoffa Araujo says:

    Tal – a Yid like Peter Beinart needs to make a parnusah – so he writes a fluff piece for non-Orthodox.

    As for different takes on the election, see the views of Moshe Grylak and Yonasan Rosenblum (basically working bnei torah and baalei teshuvah are moving away from UTJ) in last week’s English language Mishpacha.

  50. Steve Brizel says:

    Ruvie wrote in response to my query:

    “Steve b. – “Simple question-why is a Mchalel Shabbos Pasul Ledus and viewed as Dino KAum in many halachic circumstances?”
    there are many other reasons why one can be pasul leadut – charging interest on loans or gambling (even eating food in the street[like a dog] kiddushin 40b

    That IMO is a non-responsive answer which does not address the specific question that I previously posed.

  51. ruvie says:

    steve b. – what was the point to a question that you know – or at least think you know – the answer to?
    obviously, it has to to with trustworthiness or believability if one is not shomrei mitzvot (not limited to mecheleil shabbat). do you not drink the wine if a non-frum jew pours you non mevushal wine (i don’t think the rambam is normative here).?

  52. Steve Brizel says:

    Ruvie wrote:

    “steve b. – what was the point to a question that you know – or at least think you know – the answer to?
    obviously, it has to to with trustworthiness or believability if one is not shomrei mitzvot (not limited to mecheleil shabbat). do you not drink the wine if a non-frum jew pours you non mevushal wine (i don’t think the rambam is normative here).?”

    I asked a simple question as to why a Mchalel Shabbos is Pasul Ledus? Trustworthiness and believability, AFAIK, have little, if anything to do with the answer. It simply because a Mchalel Shabbos , by his actions, is demonstrating that he is denying HaShem Yisborach as the Bore Olam, and the Ribono Shel Olam.

  53. ruvie says:

    steve b. – my assumption was that was included in the definition of the mechaleil shabbat per rav ettlinger that he does not deny God because he makes kiddush etc. i assume that he was a denier was part of thew question. the point is these days one who is mechaleil shabbat does not deny God these days (as well as in the time of rav ettlinger), the same can be said of those that do not believe in the whole chumash is of mosaic authorship(since they make kidush, put on tefilin et al and are shomrei mitzvot)

  54. ruvie says:

    steve b. – is the the bar for eidut higher than the one needed to get an aliyah on shabbat and if so why? does rav ettlinger heter strictly for aliyot for mechaleil shabbat or does it transcend this category to others?

  55. MiMedinat HaYam says:

    non SS pouring wine is only objectionable to litvaks. everyone else allows it, not just rambam … litvaks are predominant in yeshiva circles … just like litvaks oppose “she’hasimcha bi’mo’no” in case of mixed seating (even in family seating), no one else objects.

    i.e., they are not suspected of AZ (maybe in r ettlinger’s time, but i dpnt think so.)

    no one objects to them bishul akum.

    2. interesting map http://www.youtube.com/2013ynet?x=/map showing election results distribution (but only shows most votes per “district”.) may be worthwhile posting; put under title of “election results distribution”.

  56. IH says:

    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/yair-lapid-s-jewish-home-is-a-reform-shul-in-tel-aviv.premium-1.496241

    “Lapid has written frequently in his weekly newspaper column of his warm relationship with Beit Daniel and of feeling at home in a synagogue without a separate women’s section. Lapid called Beit Daniel ‘a place that is friendly to its surroundings (and groundings) through whose gates and measures any Jew can pass, enabling you to come in contact with your traditions without constantly being chastised.’

    In the preface to one of his books, Lapid wrote that he is secular and has no rabbi, but that if he had a rabbi, it would be Beit Daniel’s Rabbi Meir Azari. Azari, for his part, takes pride in being the first to bring Lapid to the bimah of a synagogue. ‘I was proud to open our synagogue to Yair Lapid, and to help him to discover pluralism in Judaism and new horizons and ideas,’ Azari said Thursday.”

  57. mycroft says:

    Re article about Rabbi Lipman and giving up US citizenship “Other Israeli Americans who gave up their citizenship to serve the Israeli government include Stanley Fischer, governor of the Bank of Israel, and Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador in Washington.”
    Michael Oren did give up his US citizenship renouncing it at theUS TA embassy. Stan Fischer did not renou8nce his US citizenship-it was a position that according to Israeli policy required renouncing other citizenships but Stan Fischer got the Israeli government to give him a waiver in his case.

  58. MiMedinat HaYam says:

    i recall fischer could not get a waiver. meir kahane never lost his citizenship; it was in continuous litigation with the state dept (otherwise, he would never have gotten a visa to come to the us, even on that that fateful november 1990.)

    others who never renounced their citizenship include golda meir and moshe arens, among numerous others. the article is very misleading.

    technically, serving in a foreign army is grounds for loss of citizenship (as it involves swearing allegiance to a foreign power, the definition of renouncing citizenship.) however, the state dept ignores that, rationalizing that one was “forced ” into the oath (whatever that means.)

    by the way, arab knesset members do NOT swear allegiance. clear issue of (reverse) discrimination.

    2. the tu bi’shvat fruit article — besides ignoring issue of t”um, ignores the economics of the issue — for some reason, dried fruits are more expensive than fresh, but the (ancient) tradition dies (dries?) hard. and i would like to revisit the issue of shehecheyanu (Or even “al pri ha’etz”) on dried fruits.

  59. IH says:

    The expected UK Channel 4 Dispatches programme on “claims of the sexual abuse of children within the strictly Orthodox communities of the UK” will air next Wednesday.

    For those who have never seen this style of documentary, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc7PqjD_S3s

  60. Nachum says:

    MMY, I’m not sure where you get your “facts.” First, for a number of years, everyone making aliyah had to give up their previous passport- I once saw an exhibit of this. Of course Meir Kahane gave up his citizenship- the law was passed to get him out of the Knesset, but he just did it. That’s why he had problems getting into Canada. Taking an oath to another is not a “definition,” giving up your citizenship is an elaborate process, to weed out tax cheats.

  61. J. says:

    IH – As the press has reported, the show has footage of Rav Ephraim Padwa, Av Beis Din of the UOHC (Kedassia), the umbrella organisation for London’s Charedi communities, forbidding someone who has been abused to report this to the police:
    http://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-haredi-chief-caught-telling-alleged-victim-not-to-tell-police-about-abuse/

    In other London news, the son of one of Kedassia’s most senior rabbonim was arrested for harassing one of the Golders Green rabbis who opposed Chaim Halpern (who still has wide support in the Satmar-dominated Stamford Hill community – who largely believe that the ‘modern’ Litvishe rabbis have orchestrated a ‘bilbul’ against one of their own). A ‘beis din’ of sorts is supposedly sitting next week to adjudicate the case:
    http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/100180/channel-4-programme-asks-do-rabbis-cover-abuse

  62. J. says:

    Sorry, last link should have been:
    http://www.thejc.com/node/100184

  63. mycroft says:

    “MiMedinat HaYam on January 24, 2013 at 6:55 pm

    i recall fischer could not get a waiver.”
    Unlike others fischers family did not make aliyah -except for his wife-Fischer has remained interested in jobs outside Israel-he tried to b be a contender for thePrez of the World Bank. See the following from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Fischer . “Fischer became an Israeli citizen but did not have to renounce his American citizenship, despite previous concerns that such a step was a prerequisite for the appointment”

    “meir kahane never lost his citizenship; it was in continuous litigation with the state dept (otherwise, he would never have gotten a visa to come to the us, even on that that fateful november 1990.)” Why would Kahane have needed a visa if he had US citizenship?

    technically, serving in a foreign army is grounds for loss of citizenship (as it involves swearing allegiance to a foreign power, the definition of renouncing citizenship.) however, the state dept ignores that, rationalizing that one was “forced ” into the oath (whatever that means.) see from http://www.wildeslaw.com/images/stories/document_archive/aila_specialrenunciation.pdf “Commencing in 1967 with the landmark Supreme Court case Afroyim v. Rusk, 29 an essential tenet of the
    law relating to expatriation has been that citizenship cannot be terminated unless the citizen “voluntarily
    relinquishes” citizenship. Afroyim held that under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution all
    persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States, and that Congress lacks
    the power to deprive a citizen of this constitutionally bestowed right without his or her assent. A Statement
    of Interpretation by Attorney General Ramsey Clarke in 1969 further provided that, in accord with
    Afroyim, it was necessary to ascertain the citizen’s intent at the time the expatriative act occurred. The
    Attorney General stated that Afroyim made it clear that an act:
    which does not reasonably manifest an individual’s transfer or abandonment of allegiance to the United
    States cannot be the basis for expatriation. . . .“Voluntary relinquishment” of citizenship is not confined to a
    written renunciation, as under section 349(a). . . of the Act. It can also be manifested by other actions
    declared expatriative under the Act, if such actions are a derogation of allegiance to this country. 30
    Pursuant to the Attorney General’s statement, guiding principles were developed to assist the Department
    of State in determining when an action was “in derogation of allegiance” to the United States. These
    guidelines, incorporated into the Foreign Affairs Manual, included a list of acts, the voluntary performance
    of which would be considered highly persuasive evidence of intent to relinquish citizenship. Those acts
    mostly paralleled the current statutory provisions, and included: naturalization in a foreign state, a
    meaningful oath of allegiance to a foreign state, service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities
    against the United States,”

  64. ruvie says:

    article in mishpacha on why chareidim learning (and not going to the army) protects the country – its seems that american chareidim don’t understand the alleged existential threat:
    http://www.mishpacha.com/Browse/Article/2898/Security-Detail

    and r’ slifkin’s response:
    http://www.zootorah.com/RationalistJudaism/DraftDodgersOrDeserters.pdf

  65. Hoffa Araujo says:

    Reading about the suppression of reporting abuse and Ben Greenberg’s inviting Keshet to his congregation make me fill ill. Oy vey iz mir!

  66. Steve Brizel says:

    steve b. – is the the bar for eidut higher than the one needed to get an aliyah on shabbat and if so why? does rav ettlinger heter strictly for aliyot for mechaleil shabbat or does it transcend this category to others”

    I would suggest the following-the Aruch LaNer and CI’s views were directed within to the observant community as a statement of their obligation to act in a manner that would inspire the not yet observant to both have a positive view of Torah observance and Torah observant Jews. That in no way meant that the Psul LEdus and Dino K Akum status of a Mchallel Shabbos was obliterated in any way. FWIW, RHS mentioned that RYBS told him that when RCS was in Warsaw bsof yamav, he was a guest at a prominent resident of the Chasidic community whose minor son carried without an eruv on Shabbos-RCS refused to eat at the person’s house because of the Chilul Shabbos that had transpired.

  67. Steve Brizel says:

    Ruvie wrote:

    “the point is these days one who is mechaleil shabbat does not deny God these days (as well as in the time of rav ettlinger), the same can be said of those that do not believe in the whole chumash is of mosaic authorship(since they make kidush, put on tefilin et al and are shomrei mitzvot)”

    There is a huge difference between someone who is grossly ignorant that his or her knowledge of Torah and Halacha is nonexistent and someone whose academic and intellectual career is rooted in the premise that he or she ” do not believe in the whole chumash is of mosaic authorship(since they make kidush, put on tefilin et al and are shomrei mitzvot)” I think that a strong case can be made that in the latter case, there is no obligation to answer amen to the brachos of such a person-regardless if they subscribe to every CI and Brisker Chumra.

  68. IH says:

    On the Steve – Ruvie debate, I noticed an ad for this event in The Jewish Week:

    https://pasyn.org/lifelong-learning/adult-ed/events/pas-lecture-series-jewish-tradition-untraditional-age

    Rabbis Ellenson and JJ Schacter are both fascinating speakers. Unfortunately, I’ll be out of town.

  69. ruvie says:

    Steve b – well we disagree. if you are obligated to say amen to a Samaritan or a non-jew invoking God’s name then you need to make a better case for not saying for a conservative rabbi.
    you can say that he may not go to olam haba (based on mishna sanhedrin 10:1) but not that his words are not words. rav moshe substitutes theology for actions to nullify a person beracha even though he know full well that they believe in God. the foundation of this formulation is not sound and speaks more to polemics than anything else.

    the real issue is can you now be yotzei orthodox jews who do not believe in kol ot v’ ot was written by moshe via hashem speaking to him? if you believe that rav moshe was correct do you need to worry about who makes kiddush, blows the shofar…etc

  70. Wondering says:

    Re the article from the Denver YCT leader of Cong. BMHmusmach, “Living Inclusion: Why our Orthodox Synagogue Hosted an LGBT Training Institute” –

    The writer tries to make a case that he is going in the footsteps of – lehavdil elef havdolos – Avraham Avinu by hosting the homosexual training institute. However, the comparison is flawed. Avraham Avinu hosted what he thought were three individual עובדי עבודה זרה, as wayfarers, who needed food and shelter after walking in the blazing sun. He did not invite them to conduct an avoda zara training institute in his tent!!!

    Also I am wondering, as we see how the YCT crowd is so exerting and extending itself to try to fit in with the contemporary liberal zeitgeist of affirmative action for homosexuals, and getting into various contortions along the way, are there any red lines that YCT has in this area? For example, will they ordain ‘homosexual Rabbis’, let’s say if they openly identify as such, but claim that they either don’t engage in prohibited activity or are mum about it?

  71. IH says:

    JID highlights Yitz Landes’ thoughtful book review published Wednesday on The Talmud Blog: http://thetalmudblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/naftali-cohns-the-memory-of-the-temple-and-the-making-of-the-rabbis/

    “I don’t think that I have a better answer to questions like ‘why the Rabbis spend so much time discussing the Temple?’ than Cohn does, although I do think that we have to work a little differently in order to respond to them more fully. Nonetheless, Memory marks a significant step in furthering the research into rabbinic conceptions of the Temple in that it forces us to evaluate the Rabbi’s discourse in the context of post-destruction Judaean society.”

  72. Steve Brizel says:

    Ruvie wrote:

    “Steve b – well we disagree. if you are obligated to say amen to a Samaritan or a non-jew invoking God’s name then you need to make a better case for not saying for a conservative rabbi”

    If either recited a bracha for an aliya-you are not obligated to answer.

  73. Steve Brizel says:

    For those interested, Mishpacha also had a wonderful interview with R P Stolper, the founding national director of NCSY.

  74. ruvie says:

    steve b. – you missed to the point of rav moshe. we are not talking about aliyot but the simple act of saying amen to a beracha or invoking God’s name as a blessing of sorts – to wish rav moshe says a conservative rabbis’s words are meaningless and you do not answer amen.

  75. Tal Benschar says:

    The writer tries to make a case that he is going in the footsteps of – lehavdil elef havdolos – Avraham Avinu by hosting the homosexual training institute. However, the comparison is flawed. Avraham Avinu hosted what he thought were three individual עובדי עבודה זרה, as wayfarers, who needed food and shelter after walking in the blazing sun. He did not invite them to conduct an avoda zara training institute in his tent!!

    I would add further that he made them wash their feet to leave the dust of their feet, the avodah zara, outside his tent.

  76. Richard says:

    I don’t know what you’re imagining, and I don’t particularly want to know, but I doubt that the Keshet training institute is teaching people how to commit Torah prohibitions. (I would object to such a training institute being held in an Orthodox synagogue regardless of whether it was homosexual heterosexual.)

  77. mycroft says:

    from my 814am Jan 25 post

    “Unlike others fischers family did not make aliyah -except for his wife-Fischer has remained interested in jobs outside Israel-he tried to b be a contender for thePrez of the World Bank”

    My mistake -In June 2011, Fischer applied for the post of IMF managing director. From January 1988 to August 1990 he was Vice President, Development Economics and Chief Economist at the World Bank. He then became the First Deputy Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), from September 1994 until the end of August 2001.
    He applied to be managing director of the IMF not head of the World Bank-he of course had previously had high ranking positions in both.

  78. IH says:

    Despite some here dismissing Israeli “Secular” study of Talmud, one of the leaders has just been elected an MK. A short piece about her in Ha’aretz: http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/she-brought-israelis-to-the-talmud-can-she-bring-its-wisdom-to-the-knesset.premium-1.496087

    “In an interview with me several years ago, for an article on the role of God in the lives of secular children, Calderon explained why she, as what she called a ‘non-halakhic person,’ or someone who has not taken on the obligation to observe Jewish religious law, wanted her children to have God. ‘It’s important to me that my children understand the Jewish narrative,’ she said, adding that it was ‘also because there must be a place, an empty corner, beyond everything that we understand, and this place is called God.’ “

  79. mycroft says:

    “joel rich on January 23, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    Yair Lapid’s Speech at the Haredi Law Track, Kiryat Ono College

    Worth it’s own post
    KT”

    AGREED!! Thanks to Joel’s link I saw the video -for those who don’t like to spend time watching videos when they can read a transcript Rabbi Adlerstein at Cross Currents posted a trancript

    http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2013/01/25/yair-lapid-at-kiryat-ono-the-transcript/

    IMO the video is worth seeing.

  80. Shlomo says:

    That’s a great video, and now I understand why so many people voted for Lapid. But is his request realistic? The secular public may have lost, but did the charedim win, or was it loss-loss? Between their institutionalized poverty and lack of visionary leadership, I’m not sure the charedim today have the resources needed to take responsibility on a national level.

    (If anything, by the way, Bennett’s success in the last election shows that a different sector is taking that responsibility.)

  81. Steve Brizel says:

    Ruvie wrote:

    “steve b. – you missed to the point of rav moshe. we are not talking about aliyot but the simple act of saying amen to a beracha or invoking God’s name as a blessing of sorts – to wish rav moshe says a conservative rabbis’s words are meaningless and you do not answer amen”

    Obviously-we disagree-the invocation of Shem HaShem or reciting Amen has halachic and hashkafic meaning, content and ramifications. The Talmud by no means views the same as a “simple act.”

  82. shachar haamim says:

    “Stan Fischer did not renou8nce his US citizenship-it was a position that according to Israeli policy required renouncing other citizenships but Stan Fischer got the Israeli government to give him a waiver in his case.”

    it wasn’t a waiver. It was a determination that the Bank of Israel law did not require that the governor of the bank relinquish any foreign citizenship.
    The requirements for a knesset member to relinquish foreign citizenship are found in the Basic Law: Knesset. For Judges it is in Basic Law: Judiciary.
    Regarding diplomats this may be a function of foreign ministry directives rather than law. Senior diplomats (ambassadors) must relinquish foreign citizenship. Other people that are part of diplomatic missions can’t hold citizenship of the country in which they are posted, as they can’t be subject to the domestic laws of the country in order to benefit from diplomatic immunity – these may also be in certain international treaties to which Israel is party.

  83. mycroft says:

    shachar haamim on January 28, 2013 at 3:42 am

    ““Stan Fischer did not renou8nce his US citizenship-it was a position that according to Israeli policy required renouncing other citizenships but Stan Fischer got the Israeli government to give him a waiver in his case.”

    it wasn’t a waiver. It was a determination that the Bank of Israel law did not require that the governor of the bank relinquish any foreign citizenship.”
    When he first was negotiating for the job he was told that a condition was to renounce US citzenship-when he refused then they decided it was OK. It was assumed that the job required renouncing of citizenship. A reinterpretation of requirements for a specific individual is the equivalent of a waiver.

  84. Rabbi Y.H.Henkin says:

    For discussion of R. Feinstein’s ruling, see Bnei Banim 2:9.

 
 

Submit a Response

 

You must be logged in to submit a response.