Friday, 31 May 2013

God Included Women at Sinai

Originally published 5/31/13, 11:20 AM, Eastern Daylight Time.
God included women at Sinai - The Jewish Standard
http://www.jstandard.com/content/item/god_included_women_at_sinai/27318


A Reader Responds:

Dear Editor:

The Author's logic escapes me, because the arguments appear to be inconsistent.

1. She invokes the Authority of Sinai
2. She Claims that Sinai empowered women with the right to the Torah...

So far - no problem

However addressing #1
As a professed JTS graduate, what kind of Authority from Sinai is there nowadays to confer such an absolute right?

#2. The Power conferred to women at Sinai WAS separate but equal! The paradigm for that was Moses and Miriam doing separate but equal Sheerot at the Yam Suf. To then revise that Power using Modern Sensibilities seems somehow eclectic or inconsistent.

To Summarize, if Sinai empowered women, it did so on its own terms. If you wish to invoke Modern Social Correctness, then please leave Sinai out of the discussion.

A Concerned Reader
Teaneck, NJ


Best Regards,
RRW

Thursday, 30 May 2013

Shach and Taz

Despite a physical and historical "Nim'nu v'Gamru"
Favoring the Taz over the Shach
Over Time, "Evolution" favored the Shach over the Taz
«Segal also authored responsa which, though sometimes quoted from the manuscripts, were never published. He and Shabbethai Kohen (the ShaK) are among the greatest halakhic authorities among the Acharonim. In 1683, the Council of Four Lands declared that the authority of the Taz should be considered greater than that of the ShaK, but later the ShaK gained more and more in authority.»
David HaLevi Segal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
David ben Shemu'el ha-Levi


Best Regards,
RRW

The Post-Yeshiva Synagogue

Originally published 5/30/13, 11:18 AM, Eastern Daylight Time.
«Guest post by R. Yonatan Kaganoff
Rabbi Yonatan Kaganoff served for many years as a Rabbinic Coordinator in the OU's Kashruth Division and was the founding Online Editor of the journal Tradition. He has semikhah from RIETS, studied Jewish philosophy at the Bernard Revel Graduate School, and serves on the Board of Advisors of K'hal Adath Jeshurun in Washington Heights.
*****

 The Post-Yeshiva Synagogue
Introduction
....

While every synagogue has its own unique internal dynamic and features, I would like to propose four distinctive characteristics for the post-Yeshiva synagogue. I further suggest that these characteristics represent an attempt to redefine their synagogue as a Bais Ha-Medrash; a house of study, and its member and participants, therefore, as people who are associated with a Bais Ha-Medrash rather than a synagogue; a house of worship.

These four characteristics are:

The use of chairs and tables instead of benches or stadium seating.
The Rabbi's speech is moved from before Mussaf to before Kerias ha-Torah.
Kiddush is not recited on Friday night.
The elimination of Anim Zemiros from services on Shabbat morning.»

The Post-Yeshiva Synagogue - Torah Musings - Jewish Ideas Daily


Best Regards,
RRW

Wednesday, 29 May 2013

Jewish Tribune - Women of the Wall: Reaching Beyond Disagreement

The present conflict involving the Women of the Wall goes beyond the specifics of this issue and raises concern about our nations ability to continue in unity. In regard to this, our first issue may be this recognition of this challenge of unity in itself. This is a matter I further pursue in my most recent Tribune article

Please see Women of the Wall: Reaching Beyond Disagreement

Rabbi Ben Hecht

The Twentieth of Sivan

«The Twentieth of Sivan was established in Ashkenazi communities as a day of fasting and teshuvah to remember two major tragedies of Jewish history. First, let us discuss the halachic basis for the observance of commemorative fasts.

<snip>

The History of the 20th of Sivan

This date is associated with two major tragedies that befell European Jewry. The earlier catastrophe, which occurred in the 12th Century, was recorded in a contemporary chronicle entitled Emek Habacha, ...

One night in the city of Blois, which is in central France, a Jew watering his horse happened upon a murder scene in which a gentile adult had drowned a gentile child. The murderer, not wanting to be executed for his crime, fled to the local ruler, telling him that he had just caught a Jew murdering a child!...»

«The fast of the 20th of Sivan also memorializes an additional Jewish calamity. Almost five hundred years later, most of the Jewish communities of eastern Europe suffered the horrible massacres that are referred to as the Gezeiros Tach veTat, which refer to the years of 5408 (Tach) and 5409 (Tat), corresponding to the secular years 1648 and 1649. Although this title implies that these excesses lasted for a period of at most two years, the calamities of this period actually raged on sporadically for the next twelve years.

First, the historical background: Bogdan Chmielnitzky was a charismatic, capable, and nefariously anti-Semitic Cossack leader in the Ukraine, which at the time was part of the Kingdom of Poland. Chmielnitzky led a rebellion of the Ukrainian population against their Polish overlords. Aside from nationalistic and economic reasons for the Ukrainians revolting against Polish rule, there were also religious reasons,...»

Yeshiva.co - The Twentieth of Sivan



Best Regards,
RRW

Tuesday, 28 May 2013

B'rachot in Dispute - Introduction

BE"H I am planning a series in 3 parts or more on various B'rachot that are debated or subject to Halachic controversy.

Part 1 - An outline List of Disputed B'rachot according to several categories. This list may grow due to feedback

Part 2 - Mar'eh M'komot in Halachic literature that discuss these cases. This may be the largest component

Part 3 - Analyzing the sources and categories, especially inductively, to find common underlying dynamics that trigger such disputes.

Best Regards,
RRW

Which Minhag?

Q: Which is the only Minhag that unites
Hassidim
Yekkes
• Followers Of the Gra
• Followers Of The Rema

A: Qitniyyot LOL


Best Regards,
RRW

Monday, 27 May 2013

Torat Hashem Temimah

How is the Torah "Temimah"?

Shloymie: If the Torah is "Temimah" how come certain things are omitted, for instance, the prohibition against Rape?

RRW: Good point. Maybe because given everything else in the Torah, we can figure that out ourselves!?

Shloymie: Fine, but surely there are many other things we "could have" figured out, EG Lo Tignov! So, is this consistent?

RRW: OK - maybe Temimah means "wholesome" not "comprehensive" - which might explain its context in the passuk preceding Mesheevat Nefesh?

Shloymie: So does that mean that Temimah implies that Torah is "Nutritious" for the soul?

RRW: Indeed! And perhaps that approach works better, both in context and in reality.


Best Regards,
RRW

Why Rabbi Dr. Alan J. Yuter Resigned from Conservative Judaism

«I believe that the modern Jew is given the choice to choose between two irreconcilable
orthodoxies. Given the vehemence, which has assumed eschatological proportions, in which the issues of women rabbis and cantors has been pushed--Dr. Schorsch pointed to a 9-3 decision of the CJLS in 1974 without telling anyone that the 9 votes opposed women cantors and he waves the so-called "Roth responsum" which was not even accepted by the CJLS or the faculty of JTS--it is clear that feminism is now a new fundamentalism.

I choose the orthodoxy of Jewish tradition over the orthodoxy of current secular taste.»

Why Rabbi Dr. Alan J. Yuter Resigned from the Rabbinical Assembly and Left Conservative Judaism | YUTOPIA



Best Regards,
RRW

Sunday, 26 May 2013

Who Hijacked Feminism

My Mom A"H was a self-described feminist. To her, this implied such things as
1. Equal Pay for Equal Work
2. Women's Suffrage
3. Men sharing in household chores, etc.

But she specifically rejected the trend of "Masculating Women." She never wore pants - except to clean around the house. She wanted to be FEMININE, and not become an ersatz man.

She headed the Women's Division of the Hebrew Academy of Greater Hartford and sat on the board of directors of that institution. But she never needed to validate herself by
1. Leading Services in Shul
2. Taking an Aliyah
3. Reading the Torah
Etc.

What changed? When did Feminism stop Honouring Feminity and start pushing for Me Too Masculinity, a la Anat Hoffman?

Best Regards,
RRW

Each River and its Channel: Halakhic Attitudes Toward Liturgy

«"Each River and its Channel": Halakhic Attitudes Toward Liturgy
A reply to Rabbi Aryeh Frimer, "The Wrong Changes in Jewish Liturgy"
Guest post by R. Dr. Seth (Avi) Kadish
Rabbi Dr. Seth (Avi) Kadish is a graduate and musmakh of Yeshiva University who received a Ph.D. in Jewish Philosophy from the University of Haifa. He teaches adult Jewish education in a number of frameworks including soldiers in the IDF's "Nativ" course, the Hebrew University's Gandel Program, and the International School at the University of Haifa. He is the author of Kavvana: Directing the Heart in Jewish Prayer (1997) and The Book of Abraham: Rabbi Shimon ben Ẓemaḥ Duran and the School of Rabbenu Nissim Gerondi (currently being published online). This essay is available under the CC-BY-SA license; attribution should point to the post at the Hirhurim blog. A continually updated and corrected version is available 
*****

Each River and its Channel: »
R. Dr. Seth (Avi) Kadish
«C. A Spectrum of Opinion
Among the Sephardic rishonim there were also compromise positions. The Ra'ah leaned towards the idea that Ḥazal actually composed a text, but took that historical theory in a different practical direction by suggesting that Ḥazal had no problem with their text being changed, including major changes, as long as those changes didn't become permanent ones in every prayer. Adding piyyutim is permitted precisely because they are not added every day.[6] The Ritva cited the Ra'ah alongside the Rashba.
Far from being the view of "a few rishonim" who argued with the Rambam as Rabbi Frimer would have it,[7] the Rashba's flexible view of both history and halakhah was a popular Sephardic one, echoed by the Abudarham[8] and adopted with some modifications[9] by the Rashbaẓ (a Spanish exile who became the greatest posek of North Africa and an important authority for the author of the Shulḥan Arukh). Furthermore, if we take the compromise positions into account, then the Rashba's basic overall conclusion about the legitimacy of making major changes within the blessings was shared not only by the much earlier ge'onim, but also by the vast majority of rishonim in Spain, North Africa, Provence and Ashkenaz, including a great many that it is impossible to analyze here. In Spain: Abudarham, Rabbenu Yonah (on Alfasi Berakhot 5b), Rashba, Ritva, Ra'ah, Ran,[10] and Rashbaẓ. In North Africa: Rabbenu Hannanel and Rashbaẓ (as previously). In Provence: Ra'avad (quoted in the Tur and Shiltei Gibborim A on Alfasi Berakhot 5a) and Meiri.
In Ashkenaz the discussion began with Rashi's interpretation of Mishnah Berakhot 1:4 (11a), which was ambigious. It seemed to pose a theoretical problem for major additions like piyyutim (even though I am unaware of any explicit evidence that Rashi actually opposed them).[11] According to the Meiri's interpretation of Rashi, it is forbidden to add new topics to blessings, which would exclude major piyyutim but permit modest changes. Alternatively, the Ra'ah followed Rashi in his interpretation of the mishnah, explaining "long" and "short" in terms of the length of the text, but permitted any change that was not permanent (see above). Most influential, however, was Rabbenu's Tam's far more lenient interpretation (rejecting Rashi), which was cited widely and approvingly among the ba`alei ha-tosafot (Berakhot 11a), Hagahot Maimoniyyot (on Hilkhot Tefillah 6:3[3]), and many other Ḥakhmei Ashkenaz (and even elsewhere such as by Rabbenu Yonah and the Meiri).
An important exception was the Rosh, who is quoted by his son in the Tur (Oraḥ Ḥayyim 68) as having recommended the elimination of piyyutim in the blessings ("for it causes [people] to interrupt through useless talk about frivolities, and also Rabbenu Tam's explanation that he gave to justify the custom is not correct in my eyes"). But elsewhere (on Berakhot 34a and cited in Tur Oraḥ Ḥayyim 112) the Rosh explicitly accepted the practice based on standard justifications without a word of criticism.
Indeed, Tur Oraḥ Ḥayyim 68 is highly unusual in its emphasis. As such, it is probably the best possible example of the exact halakhic attitude that Rabbi Frimer emphasized in his article. It begins with a lengthy citation of the Ramah, who described his displeasure with piyyutim and his unfortunate inability to eliminate them, followed by the Rambam. The Tur then continued by pointing out the prevalence of the custom, Rabbenu Tam's "forced interpretation" (daḥak lefaresh) in order to uphold it, and concluded with his father's recommendation to abolish it.
However, Tur Oraḥ Ḥayyim 68 is not in any way representative of the general opinion in Ashkenaz or elsewhere, neither in its own time nor later. The Baḥ on the Tur responded passionately in favor of the traditional Ashkenazic opinion. The Levush is notable for his succinct summary of the halakhic situation in his time, both in terms of the principles and the practical reality; he remarked, "Nahara nahara u-fashteih [Each river and its channel]: Where the custom is [to say piyyutim] then that is the custom, and where the custom is not to say them then that is the custom, for each of the two opinions has authorities to rely upon."
D. Practical Halakhah and Halakhic Attitudes
Rabbi Frimer is quite right to say that it is wrong to tamper with the text of blessings according to the Rambam and that the Shulḥan Arukh accepted this position (Oraḥ Ḥayyim 68), apparently because it was shared by the Rambam and the Rosh.[12] However, it is equally correct that to make changes in blessings is fully permissible according to the Rashba and many others (actually the vast majority of rishonim), and that the Rashba's position was adopted by the Rema.[13] What I find lacking in the Ḥakirah article is that it heavily documents and emphasizes just one sliver out of a very wide spectrum[14] while largely ignoring the rest. It also errs by turning the Rambam's attitude into a prism through which alternative opinions are viewed, in the sense that they must be assumed to have allowed piyyutim only for exceptional reasons, or only allowed piyyutim and nothing else.
Rabbi Frimer argues with passion that the position of the Rashba and the Rema is utterly irrelevant to contemporary changes because it was an exception made by the rishonim for piyyutim alone, and only because their recitation was already such an entrenched and highly revered custom. If correct, that would seem to settle the issue once and for all.»

Each River and its Channel: Halakhic Attitudes Toward Liturgy | Hirhurim – Torah Musings



Best Regards,
RRW

















Saturday, 25 May 2013

Mussar: Chevy Suburbans

I always wondered -

Why would Frum Jews or any other Jewish Lovers of Israel for that matter, buy "Gas Guzzling" transportation that supports Arab oil interests?

Are they unconscious of the consequences of their choices?

Best Regards,
RRW

Friday, 24 May 2013

Introducing world's longest Shabbat Table

«Introducing world's longest Shabbat table
Large families are common in Bnei Brak, but even largest family doesn't host 300 people on Friday evening. Ultra-Orthodox city attempts to set Guinness record with longest Shabbat table ever seen
Tali Farkash
Published: 05.17.13, 14:24 / Israel Jewish Scene

The world's longest Shabbat table was set up recently in the central Israeli city of Bnei Brak. The table, which is 60 meters (197 feet) long, comfortably seats more than 300 people and includes all the classic Shabbat symbols: A table cloth, challah, goblets, candlesticks and more. ...»
Introducing world's longest Shabbat table - Israel Jewish Scene, Ynetnews



Best Regards,
RRW

Thursday, 23 May 2013

Hilchot K'ri'at Sh'ma SA O"Ch 73:3,4

See
SA O"Ch 73:3,4;
MB there, especially #9.

Would these rules regarding sleeping with children, or with another's children, still fly today?

Best Regards,
RRW

Tradition and Halachic Evolution, Can They Be Reconciled?

I really love the following Mashal. It came from a true story in the Home Section of a local Sunday Paper:
A couple owned a classic house designed by the famous architect Frank Lloyd Wright during the 1950's. By current standards, the Kitchen was "outmoded" and "fiftiesh".

They had 3 options -

1. Leave it as is, after all, one does not mess with the handiwork of a master!

2. Completely redo it, after all they OWN it. Who cares about its history? Comfort trumps "Class".

3. The option they actually chose - find expert architects who understand Wright's "sheetos" and apply them to a modern kitchen, without damaging the spirit of the original design. Win-Win.

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

A Master of Traditional Texts can wade Between Scylla and Charybdis, arriving home safely home without damaging his ship. He does so by avoiding having his ship list too far Port or Starboard.


Best Regards,
RW

Wednesday, 22 May 2013

Shuls on FB

Chevra Ahavas Yisroel, a Lubavitch synagogue in Crown Heights, paves the way for shuls "Doing Facebook"

Clips and Phrases

http://mjbrosseau.tumblr.com/post/49436986090/this-shul-will-school-you-on-facebook


Best Regards,
RRW

Who Has the Final Word in Halachah?

I was once teaching a Mishnah B'rurah class to some beginners. I was asked:

"Isn't it true that S'phardim Always follow the m'chabbeir and that Ashk'nazim Always follow the Rema?"

I said, "While that is generally so, it is not absolutely so."

The same for prefering Bavli over Y'rushalmi, which is the default, but not absolute.

And so is often the case, rules have exceptions. I call them "defauts"

The Bet Yosef set up a Bet Din, to determine Halachah which he himself ignores in numerous cases.

And so does any one here know of anyone who follows a given "Poseik X" 100% of the time?

Best Regards,
RRW

Tuesday, 21 May 2013

JVO: Intermarriage 2

Jewish Values Online (jewishvaluesonline.org) is a website that asks the Jewish view on a variety of issues, some specifically Jewish and some from the world around us -- and then presents answers from each of the dominations of Judaism. Nishmablog's Blogmaster Rabbi Wolpoe and Nishma's Founding Director, Rabbi Hecht, both serve as Orthodox members of their Panel of Scholars.

This post continues this series on the Nishmablog that features responses on JVO by one of our two Nishma Scholars who are on this panel. This week's presentation is to one of the questions to which Rabbi Hecht responded.

* * * * *
Question: My brother recently married a non-Jewish woman. I went to the wedding, not because I wanted to, but because my Mother insisted I go. My husband and I sat in a corner with our kosher store bought sandwiches (no kosher food in sight) and made a presence. It was a very uncomfortable evening, and has led to even more questions for me. I love my brother very much and want to be part of his life, but I truly do not want to be around his non-Jewish wife. We do not live in the same city, so its not like we run into each other frequently, but I am not sure what I am supposed to do for the occasions that we do meet. I would consider myself modern Orthodox and my brother has gone beyond non-observant; he now considers himself an atheist. What is the Jewish view on these situations? Does one just try to be polite to the non-Jewish spouse to maintain a relationship with the Jewish family member? My husband and I hope to have a family soon. How do you handle exposing your children to something you are teaching them is wrong? I know the fact that I do not want to be at a table (or in the same room) as his wife hurts my mother tremendously (she does not like what my brother has done either, but fears losing him). Is my difficulty with my brother and his wife a lack of respect for my mother as her children cannot spend quality time together? I know there are several questions listed here. I thank you in advance for your assistance with this.


Life events generally do involve variant issues with a spectrum of ethical concerns and, as such, many questions should actually be expected. You are, as such, to actually be commended for voicing many of them. The first challenge that often exists, though, is the proper articulation of these concerns. This is not to say that you have presented your questions incorrectly. What is often overlooked, though, is a necessary investigation of the underlying ethical constructs upon which one may base one’s perspectives, conclusions and dilemmas/questions. We often assume certain ideas or viewpoints to be correct without a proper consideration of the true underlying values or motivations in the circumstances. In certain ways, this is also what we must first investigate in regard to your questions. (It is with this in mind, that I would also like to direct you to another question within this general topic of intermarriage that was previously addressed on Jewish Values Online. Please see http://www.jewishvaluesonline.org/867. As the development of my response in regard to this question may direct me in a different way, my thoughts there may also be of assistance.)
 
The essence of your inquiry is clearly the question of how you are to relate to your brother given that he is now part of an intermarriage. Perhaps the most poignant aspect of this question is how you are to proceed when, please God, you have children. Before you approach this issue, though, you must first consider why you are honestly against intermarriage. How you understand the problem will greatly affect how you will respond to it and there are certain implications in your description of this issue that leads me to believe that your perception of the issue is somewhat skewed, yielding the possibility of error in how you proceed. Don’t get me wrong. Intermarriage is a powerful challenge within the Jewish community and developing a proper response to it is a most difficult undertaking. This is especially so when we consider the message we wish to impart to our children in this regard. This, however, makes the correct definition of the issue even more important.
 
The first item that hit me was how you mentioned that you do not wish to be around your brother’s non-Jewish wife yet you do not mention anything about her. As a person, do you like her? Do you dislike her? What has she done to offend you? If anything, you should perhaps have great difficulty being around your brother who has forsaken his heritage and, it would seem, even his belief? I am, of course, not offering this as a suggestion or even an alternative. Your brother’s conclusions about God, religion and even his own Jewish identity are, most likely, the results of weaknesses in our Jewish educational structures. In so many ways, the reasons that are often presented for why someone should continue to identify as a Jew and not intermarry are so weak that it is actually amazing that even more individuals are not choosing to intermarry. I clearly do not believe that you should have negative feelings towards your brother because of his choice of a non-Jew as a wife. In the same vein, though, I would also question why you would or should have negative feelings towards his wife simply because she is not Jewish. That is a fact that bothers you because of your beliefs – a matter we shall discuss shortly – but it is not – and should not become – a statement about her. She is simply a person acting pursuant to her beliefs (with which you happen to disagree). Of course, there are times when another’s beliefs are so offensive that they are a reason, in themselves, for you to shun this person. But is that the case here? If the woman is actually a fine human being than the harbouring of negative feelings towards her simply because she is not Jewish – or, in more specific terms, is a non-Jewish woman who chose to marry a Jew – is a problem. From her perspective – and perhaps even more importantly, from the perspective a rational natural morality -- she has done nothing wrong. It is your belief in a Revelation at Sinai that declares her behaviour to be wrong – and it is within this perspective, and only within this perspective, that this dilemma must be approached.
 
This leads me to the second item that struck me and that is the role of your mother. While the Torah’s commands to honour parents are clearly of high value (see Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 33), there is a clear limitation on them whenever they collide with any other Torah value. See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 240:15. (See, further, Biurei HaGra.) Concern for your mother is thus important but only subsequent to your own independent determination of what is proper. It is only within the spectrum of proper behaviour that one can consider the effect on parents in terms of narrowing down the permitted options. On the surface, this would seem to simply imply that concern for your mother’s familial feelings should not be allowed to interfere with any clear-cut directive to remain aloof from your brother’s wife. While this may be a proper conclusion as well, this recognition of the gap between your mother’s views and the Torah views also indicates that any deviation between your mother’s negative view of intermarriage and the Torah’s negative view must also be acknowledged and considered. In that, it would seem you and your husband ate your kosher food at this wedding alone, your mother does not share your views of Revelation and the binding nature of Jewish Law. If this is so, why then is your mother against intermarriage? Without a clear Revelational directive not to intermarry, human emotions against intermarriage raises many questions and issues. It is important as you proceed that, in both directions, you do not let your mother’s perspectives – and even natural value selections – deviate you improperly from the Torah path.
 
But what now is this Torah path? As we recite daily in the blessings we say in preparation of our study of Torah – asher bachar banu mikol ha’amim, Who has chosen us from amongst all the nations – it is important for us to understand that our root distinction as Jews is because God has chosen us from amongst the other nations. It is a Divine act that has distinguished us a Jews. If this is on our mind, we can also understand that with this great distinction come great responsibilities. If God has so honoured us by choosing us from amongst all the nations it must clearly have a great purpose – and it is of this purpose that we must continuously be conscious. What does this say in regard to intermarriage? On the simplest level, we could argue that this idea should tell us to have strong negative feelings towards a Jew who intermarries because this person is throwing off a yoke of responsibility. Yet, does the person truly see it this way? What about the Divine honour that this person is also ignoring for it is God Who has so chosen this person? The bottom line is that most people intermarry because they don’t view their Jewish identity in this manner. They do not see it as a responsible privilege that God has bestowed upon them. It may even be that the non-Jewish spouse sees the marrying of a Jew as more honourable than the Jew himself. The fact is that the challenge of intermarriage should actually bring us back to consider the very honour of being Jewish. If people are willing to challenge this identity, it may be because these people simply do not value this identity or do not value it enough. The proper response, thus, cannot be to shun the non-Jewish spouse but, rather, to promote the honour of this identity and to act in a manner, within the confines of Halacha, that meets its responsibilities and brings honour to the identity.
 
Bottom line, what I am advocating is that you focus on the positive. As the ancient fable goes, more can be accomplished by the sun shining brightly than by the wind blowing violently. Your responsibility is to act as a Jew and to make others look upon our status as Jews in a most positive light. Within my organization, Nishma (www.nishma.org) our byline quotes from Devarim 4:6 which states that our goal should include the nations of the world seeing us a “a wise and understanding people.” That is clearly not always possible; our observance of Torah can also often lead to negative perceptions from others and this cannot stop us either (see Rashi, Bamidbar 19:2). Yet, for many reasons, attempting to be seen in a positive light must also be part of our interaction with the world. Our Jewish identity must be perceived as something honourable and of value in the world. It is in this regard, that we can truly further foster commitments to Jewish identity. In the case of intermarriage, one of the solutions is for the non-Jewish spouse to convert (of course, fully pursuant to Halacha) – and this does happen on occasion because this spouse’s new interaction with the Jewish world has actually instilled in him/her a value in being Jewish and thus a wish to become one (which then also affects the spouse born Jewish). With children also the method of dealing with such situations is by promoting the value of being Jewish, not through a motivation from a fear that they will see the other alternative as better. If your children say one day how unfortunate it was that your brother intermarried or that his wife did not convert because they have forsaken the honorable and responsible status of being Jewish, you know you will have been successful.  
 
So what am I saying? This is a time for you to respond with not simply a pride in being Jewish but with a recognition of the great honour and responsibility that God has bestowed upon you. Act in a manner that garnishes honour from God and your fellow human beings (Avot 2:1) – that is the challenge that is before you. In this manner you could even re-ignite positive feelings of Jewish identity in your brother and, perhaps, kindle them in your sister-in-law. In this manner, you also need not worry about your children coming in contact with this violation of Jewish Law or with any individual who offers a lifestyle choice contrary to Halacha. They will want the status of being one of those who positively maintains the status that God has bestowed on them. The answer lies simply in how you conduct yourself as a Jew.

The Media and Half-Truths

« But there was another story last Friday that the media either missed or botched entirely: the thousands of Jewish women and girls who filled the area directly in front of the Kotel and almost to the back wall of the Kotel plaza, completely dwarfing the group of one hundred or so women associated with WoW. (The figure of 400 to 500 WoW given by some media outlets is patent nonsense.)

When I arrived at the Kotel a little past 7:00 a.m., there were about 25 (not 2,000 as reported by Ha'aretz) young haredi men standing on the upper level at the far north of the Kotel Plaza shouting and ruining the prayers for all those on the men's side who had come to pray on Rosh Hodesh. ....

What surprised me, however, was that the most prominent video camera remained exclusively focused on this small group among the many thousands then at the Kotel.

The media showed absolutely no interest in the thousands upon thousands of seminary girls and older women praying on the women's side and not raising their voices above a quiet whisper. ...

And this group was special in another respect: It included women and girls across the national religious-haredi spectrum. »

The Feminist Story the Media Missed at the Kotel :: Jewish Media Resources
http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/1605/the-feminist-story-the-media-missed-at-the-kotel


Best Regards,
RRW

Monday, 20 May 2013

Why do Aveilim Say Kaddish, etc. ... ?

Q. What is the common denominator for Aveilim, when they are leading or reciting -

1. Kaddish?
2. Bensching?
3. Davening?
4. Birkot HaTorah during an Alliayh?

A. The Key common denominator may be found in the responses elicited.

In cases 1 and 2
Y'hei Sh'meih Rabbah and Y'hee Sheim Hashem m'vorach are equivalent forms of "Kiddush Hashem Borabbim".

Similarly, while leading Davening and during an Aliyah, the Aveil's Bar'chu elicits "Baruch Hashem Hamvorach L'olam Vo'ed, which is along the lines of the above

Thus the common goal is for the Avel to have the responders Bless Hashem or Sheim Hashem forever.

Q: Why does the Aveil do this?

A: It's similar to Boruch Dayan Ho'emet and Tzidduk Haddin. The Aveil publicly shows no bitterness towards Hashem. Aderabba, he goes out of his way to praise Him.

Best Regards,
RRW