Igros Moshe (O.C.
4:49): ...It
is necessary to know that women are not inferior in their level
of kedusha (holiness) to men. Concerning kedusha, women are equal to men
regarding the aspect that the obligation of mitzvos is only because of holiness..
Also we see that all the verses regarding kedusha apply equally to women.
Whether it is in regard to the beginning of the receiving of Torah when the Torah
says, And you will be to Me a treasure and you will be for me a holy people. Or
when G‑d said to speak to Beis Yaakov – which means the women and tell Bnei
Yisroel – which means the men. Or when the Torah says, You shall be holy men to
Me – in Mishpatim. Or in Shemini, You shall be holy or in Kedoshim, And they
will be holy. Or in Re’eh, Because you are a holy people to me. In all these
verses where kedusha of the Jewish people is mentioned, it also applies to
women. This equivalence of halachic kedusha is why women say the same beracha –
“who has commanded us with His mitzvos” - when they do mitzvos as men say. This
is true also even when they do mitzvos that the Torah doesn’t obligate because
of various leniencies that G‑d has for women not having to do certain mitzvos.
Their exemption from certain mitzvos is certainly not the result of being
inferior, G-d forbid! And concerning the obligations between husband and wife,
the husband is obligated to honor his wife and the wife is obligated to honor
her husband – without any difference. Furthermore there were many women who
were prophets and they had exactly the same laws of prophets as the men. In
addition there are many things that women are praised more than men in Torah
verses and the words of our Sages. There is absolutely no degradation of their
honor or anything else by the fact that they are exempt from studying Torah and
time bound positive commandments. Thus there is no reason to complain at all.
Consequently it is necessary for you to explain this each and every time. It is
necessary to be determined and strong in these views which are like the laws of
the Torah and to protest against those women who stubbornly insist on clinging
to their foolish and distorted [feminist ideology]- in order that no change
should be made to any aspect of holy Jewish practice
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Simchas Torah Hakafos – Standing Up
Five Towns Jewish Times by Rabbi Yair Hoffman
As people grow older,
often the infirmities of age can change what used to be simple activities into
situations with some challenges. Simchas
Torah is, of course, a time of intense joy in which we celebrate both the
completion and the continuity of the Torah.
In doing so, we generally remove all the Sifrei Torah from the Aron
Kodesh and encircle the Bima with seven joyous Hakafos. The Sifrei Torah are always on the move and
in front of us, and this brings up some halachic questions
THE ESSENTIAL HALACHA
The Shulchan Aruch (YD 282:2) states that one who sees a
Sefer Torah being moved is obligated to stand up in front of it. All should stand up until the person moving
the Torah reaches his place or if it is no longer within their sight.
This Halacha would seem to dictate that the entire period of
Hakafos of Simchas Torah, one must remain standing. In many places the Hakafos can last several
hours. There are places in which the
Hakafos last for four or five hours and rare is the Shul that has Hakafos for
less than an hour and a half. Must one
really stand the entire time?
Rabbi Yair Bacharach, author of the Chavas Yair writes in
his newly discovered commentary on Shulchan Aruch (Mekor Chaim 141:7) that, in
fact, there is such an obligation to stand.
ONE
LENIENCY
The Aruch HaShulchan (YD 282:5) expresses a somewhat more
lenient view. He writes that while the
Hakafos are going on and the Torahs are encircling the Bima, there is certainly
an obligation to stand. However, in
between the Hakafos, even though the Torahs are being held by individuals, one
may sit down. His reason is that this is
uquivalent to the Torah having reached its place. It is
interesting to note that Rav Yoseph Teomim in his Pri Magadim (Mishbetzes
HaZahav 141) writes that when a Chazan is holding the Torah while reciting
Yizkor it is considered as if the Torah is resting in its place and there is no
obligation to stand up. So we do see
some precedent for the Aruch HaShulchan’s opinion.
Slashing tires on Shabbos - required to pay?
5tjtimes by Rabbi Yair Hoffman
This past Chol HaMoed Shabbos a near tragedy was averted by a quick-thinking Orthodox Jewish man, when he noticed that a driver was stopped at a stop sign on Empire Avenue right before the corner of Reads Lane. The problem was that the driver had fallen fast asleep with his foot on the brakes. The person noticed the imminent danger and acted quickly.
This past Chol HaMoed Shabbos a near tragedy was averted by a quick-thinking Orthodox Jewish man, when he noticed that a driver was stopped at a stop sign on Empire Avenue right before the corner of Reads Lane. The problem was that the driver had fallen fast asleep with his foot on the brakes. The person noticed the imminent danger and acted quickly.
The car was running, but the Jewish man was unable to awaken
the driver and all four doors of the sedan were locked.
If the driver were to inadvertently move his foot in his
sleep, he could possibly run over innocent victims. Plus, the area was a heavily walked site next
to two very popular synagogues with numerous kids around as well.
After calling the authorities to deal with the driver, the
Orthodox Jewish man took a kitchen knife and punctured the tires so that the
car would be unable to move forward.
Later, firemen smashed the glass windows and placed the car in park.
There are two questions.
The first question is whether it is permitted to have punctured the
driver’s tires on Shabbos or not. The second question is whether the person
doing the puncturing should have made sure to puncture the tires in such a
manner that the tires can still be repaired.
When a tire is slashed on the sidewall it cannot be repaired. If it is cut on the treading of the tire
itself then the tire may be plugged up at a tire repair shop. Is the tire-slashing hero responsible to pay?
Friday, October 5, 2012
The Clics Sukkah - halachic issues
Five Towns Jewish Times by Rabbi Yair Hoffman
According to their website, “Clics are colored plastic
building blocks that clic together to form hundreds of different models,
limited only by the imagination of the child.
They are “produced in bite-proof safe, polypropylene, they
are durable and able to withstand prolonged use under all conditions.”
Many people saw the Sukkah made out of Clics highlighted in
a popular Vosizneias artcle just before Sukkos.
The Sukkah was constructed by Yonasan Schwartz, owner of Toys to
Discover in Borough Park, with the assistance of numerous young boys from throughout
Boro Park. The Sukkah, it is reported used over 30,000 Clics and was six by
eight feet in its dimension.
The question is: Are there any halachos about the use of the
Sukkah’s clics after Yom Tov is over?
The Sukkas Chaim cites the Zichron L’Moshe which relates a
fascinating story about the Chasam Sofer.
The Chasam Sofer had a Yeshiva in Pressburg where students came to study
with him from far and wide. There was
one bochur who, while taking down the Sukkah after the Yom Tov, callously
stepped upon the branches that were used for the Schach. The Chasam Sofer felt that the young man’s
insensitivity to something that was just used for the Mitzvah of Sukkah was not
an insignificant issue. The Chasam Sofer
refused to take the young man as a student in his Yeshiva.
The issue, of course, is based on the Gemorah in Megillah
26b that states that items used for a Mitzvah (Tashmishei Mitzvah) may be
thrown out. Yet we do find (Shabbos 22a)
that a use that is demeaning or undignified is forbidden. The term used by the Poskim is Tashmish shel
Bizayon.
In regard to our Clics Sukkah we, therefore, have three
questions:
1] What exactly defines a Sukkah? Is it the Schach and the four walls? Or is it just whatever is under the Schach
(provided, of course, that what is under meets the size and stability
requirements)? [...]
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Rape - like force feeding honey on Yom Kippur
Abarbanel (Bereishis
33:18-35): The Torah says, “Dina, the daughter of Leah who was born to
Yaakov” – went out. It doesn’t tell this to criticize her that she went out – contrary
to what Rashi claims. That is because Leah was well known for her modesty and
it because of this modesty that Yaakov did not recognize her when he first had
sexual relations with her (Bereishis 29:23:25). And this that Leah went to
Yaakov and told him that he would be spending the night with her (Bereishis
30:16) – means only that she went to the door of her house and she said it
purely for the sake of Heaven [and not because of lust]. In fact this verse
comes to praise Dina and it was saying this to declare that she typically didn’t
go out of the house since she was the daughter of Leah and she had been taught to
stay in the house. In contrast Rachel was a shepherdess while Leah typically
did not leave the house. This attribute of remaining in the house also came to
her from her father who was known as one “who dwelled in the tents.” So if her
father was modest then surely this would be true of the daughter. All this
teaches that she did not go out of the house for bad intentions – G‑d forbid! –
but merely “to see the daughters of the land.” The Torah doesn’t say it was to
see the men of the city or even the children of the city – but the daughters of
the city. In other words she wanted to see the girls of the city and their clothes
and jewelry. This was because there was no other girl besides her in the
family. So she wanted to learn from the local girls as is the manner of young
unmarried women. This resolves the fourth question we raised. Furthermore there
is no doubt that Dina did not go out alone but was accompanied by a man or
woman - even though this is not mentioned in the Torah’s account – since it is self-evident.
(This is similar to the Torah’s description of Moshe going to meet his
father-in-law where it is known from other sources (Mechilta Shemos 18) that he
didn’t go alone.). However it just says, “That Shechem the son of Chamor the
ruler of this land saw her.” This verse is to be understood to mean that since
he was the son of the ruler he took Dina by force and was not concerned with
the one who accompanied her and he wasn’t afraid of Yaakov and his sons. The
Torah simple states, “Shechem took Dina and lay with her and tormented her.” [...] Perhaps the reason the Torah
says that he “tormented her” is because sexual intercourse is inherently pleasurable
even if it starts out as rape it will nevertheless typically result in physical
pleasure. For example it is mentioned in the gemora that a woman came to Rabbi
Yehuda HaNassi and told him that she had been raped. Since he held that a woman
who is raped must resist from beginning to end – he asked her whether she had
experienced any physical pleasure during the rape. Because in his view if there
was any moment that she didn’t resist then she would be prohibited to her
husband. She replied by asking him whether a person fasting on Yom Kippur who
has honey forced into his mouth - would he
find the experience pleasurable even though it was done against his will? This
is proof that a natural physical pleasure is not eliminated even if it is
brought about by force. Thus this verse is alluding to the praise of Dina.
Because she was so upset by the rape that she experienced no physical pleasure
at all. All of this teaches us that Dina was absolutely free of all sin.
Because if she had experienced pleasure there is no question that her brothers
would have killed her when they massacred the community of Shechem and they
would have viewed it as a case of an adulterous couple. However it was clear to
them that it was absolutely a case of rape – from beginning to end - and thus they did nothing to Dinah.
[The recent critical edition of the Abarbanel notes there is apparently no known source that Dina was engaged or married- in addition the Abarbanel's claim that she might have been killed if she had been forced to have pleasure is a view clearly against the halacha]
There seems to be a major dispute in the commentaries as to the degree of Dinah's complicity as well as whether she rejected Shechem totally - as the Abarbanel states - or wanted him as the Torah Temima notes.
תורה תמימה (בראשית לד:ב הערה ג): פירש"י שלא בא אליה בעונתה בשעה שנתאוית לו או שבא עליה שלא כדרכה, עכ"ל, ומה שלא פרשו חז"ל בפשיטות ויענה שאנסה שלא לרצונה, שעל זה יונח לשון ענוי כמו תחת אשר ענה את אשת רעהו (פ' תצא), י"ל ע"פ המבואר במ"ר בפרשה כאן בפסוק ויקחו את דינה ויצאו (פ' כ"ו) גוררין בה ויוצאין, והיינו שלא יצאה ברצון מבית שכם, א"כ מבואר שלא נאנסה על כרחה:
Bereishis Rabba(80:11):[[ 11. AND TOOK DINAH OUT OF SHECHEM'S HOUSE, AND WENT FORTH. R. Judah said: They dragged her out and departed.6 R. Hunia observed: When a woman is intimate with an uncircumcised person, she finds it hard to tear herself away. R. Huna [also] said7: She pleaded, And I, whither shall I carry my shame? (II Sam. XIII, 13), until Simeon swore that he would marry her. Hence it is written, And the sons of Simeon... and Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman (Gen. XLVI, 10): (this means, the son of Dinah who was intimate with a Canaanite).l R. Judah said: It means that she acted in the manner of the Canaanites.2 R. Nehemiah said: It means that she was intimate with a Hivite [Shechem] who is included in the Canaanites. The Rabbis said: [She was so called because] Simeon took and buried her in the land of Canaan
[The recent critical edition of the Abarbanel notes there is apparently no known source that Dina was engaged or married- in addition the Abarbanel's claim that she might have been killed if she had been forced to have pleasure is a view clearly against the halacha]
There seems to be a major dispute in the commentaries as to the degree of Dinah's complicity as well as whether she rejected Shechem totally - as the Abarbanel states - or wanted him as the Torah Temima notes.
תורה תמימה (בראשית לד:ב הערה ג): פירש"י שלא בא אליה בעונתה בשעה שנתאוית לו או שבא עליה שלא כדרכה, עכ"ל, ומה שלא פרשו חז"ל בפשיטות ויענה שאנסה שלא לרצונה, שעל זה יונח לשון ענוי כמו תחת אשר ענה את אשת רעהו (פ' תצא), י"ל ע"פ המבואר במ"ר בפרשה כאן בפסוק ויקחו את דינה ויצאו (פ' כ"ו) גוררין בה ויוצאין, והיינו שלא יצאה ברצון מבית שכם, א"כ מבואר שלא נאנסה על כרחה:
Bereishis Rabba(80:11):[[ 11. AND TOOK DINAH OUT OF SHECHEM'S HOUSE, AND WENT FORTH. R. Judah said: They dragged her out and departed.6 R. Hunia observed: When a woman is intimate with an uncircumcised person, she finds it hard to tear herself away. R. Huna [also] said7: She pleaded, And I, whither shall I carry my shame? (II Sam. XIII, 13), until Simeon swore that he would marry her. Hence it is written, And the sons of Simeon... and Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman (Gen. XLVI, 10): (this means, the son of Dinah who was intimate with a Canaanite).l R. Judah said: It means that she acted in the manner of the Canaanites.2 R. Nehemiah said: It means that she was intimate with a Hivite [Shechem] who is included in the Canaanites. The Rabbis said: [She was so called because] Simeon took and buried her in the land of Canaan
Minyan, group therapy, and the validation of being seen
Times of Israel by Rabbi Mendel Horowitz
Of those devout it is not unusual for men to gather, fedoras askew, seeking inspiration in the company of strangers. Thrice daily, observant men assemble for prayers and are routinely affected by the shared experience. The siddur is not lacking in appeals for personal growth; the process of supplication can be humbling, heartening, hardy. Still, as much as we talk to and about God, observant men are uncannily reserved about themselves. In a scheme that emphasizes ritual, it is easy to hide behind behavior.
A minyan is a curious thing. Ostensibly a forum for individual worship, much liturgical prose is composed in the plural, likening independent wants with communal needs. Restore us in repentance. Save us and we will be saved. Observant men pray not only with each other but for each other, regularly. Ideally, when joined in prayer dissimilar men concede similarities, the unaffiliated align. Stubbornly, differences tend to divide. There is a certain safety in praying for — and being prayed for by — others. In divine ears we each sound disharmonious. The “one for all, all for one” ideal increases our odds of being heard while protecting us from the humiliation of disclosure.
Compulsory prayers are by design both a declaration of praise and an expression of lacking. The Hebrew term for prayer – t’filah — connotes intervention, a petition for mystic involvement in the minutia of existence. Appealing for such intervention involves appreciating celestial supremacy and confessing human deficiency. Indeed, the Hebrew term for gratitude — hoda’ah — is of the same root as that of admission. While minyans can seem boisterous, the prayers they comprise can function as means for silent confessions and resolutions
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Rubashkin appeal rejected by Supreme Court
Forward The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday by Sholom Rubashkin, the former chief executive of a kosher meat packing plant in Iowa who was sentenced to 27 years in prison on charges of financial fraud.
Without comment, the high court refused to consider whether Sholom
Rubashkin’s sentence was excessive for a first-time, nonviolent offender
and whether he was entitled to a new trial based on evidence of alleged
judicial misconduct in the case.
The rejection could mark the last step in a four-year legal saga that began in May 2008 when federal authorities raided the Agriprocessors kosher meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa.
Monday, October 1, 2012
California bans therapy for sexual orientation
NYTimes California has become the first state to ban the use for minors of disputed therapies to “overcome” homosexuality, a step hailed by gay rights groups across the country that say the therapies have caused dangerous emotional harm to gay and lesbian teenagers.
This bill bans nonscientific ‘therapies’ that have driven young people to depression and suicide,” Gov. Jerry Brown said in a statement on Saturday after he signed the bill into law. “These practices have no basis in science or medicine, and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery.”
The law, which is to take effect on Jan. 1, states that no “mental health provider” shall provide minors with therapy intended to change their sexual orientation, including efforts to “change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”
The law, which is to take effect on Jan. 1, states that no “mental health provider” shall provide minors with therapy intended to change their sexual orientation, including efforts to “change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”
Tattoo to remember the Holocaust
NyTimes When Eli Sagir showed her grandfather, Yosef Diamant, the new tattoo on her left forearm, he bent his head to kiss it. Mr. Diamant had the same tattoo, the number 157622, permanently inked on his own arm by the Nazis at Auschwitz. Nearly 70 years later, Ms. Sagir got hers at a hip tattoo parlor downtown after a high school trip to Poland. The next week, her mother and brother also had the six digits inscribed onto their forearms. This month, her uncle followed suit. [...]
It is certainly an intensely personal decision that often provokes ugly interactions with strangers offended by the reappropriation of perhaps the most profound symbol of the Holocaust’s dehumanization of its victims. The fact that tattooing is prohibited by Jewish law — some survivors long feared, incorrectly, that their numbers would bar them from being buried in Jewish cemeteries — makes the phenomenon more unsettling to some, which may be part of the point.
“It’s shocking when you see the number on a very young girl’s hand,” Ms. Sagir said. “It’s very shocking. You have to ask, Why?” [...]
“It’s shocking when you see the number on a very young girl’s hand,” Ms. Sagir said. “It’s very shocking. You have to ask, Why?” [...]
Ms. Sagir, a cashier at a minimarket in the heart of touristy Jerusalem,
said she is asked about the number 10 times a day. There was one man who
called her “pathetic,” saying of her grandfather, “You’re trying to be
him and take his suffering.” And there was a police officer who said,
“God creates the forgetfulness so we can forget,” Ms. Sagir recalled. “I
told her, ‘Because of people like you who want to forget this, we will
have it again.’ ”
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Holiness is not ascetisicm:Rav Shimon Shkop
Translation by Rabbi Micha Berger click here for full introduction
In my opinion, this whole concept is included in Hashem’s mitzvah “Be holy, [for I am Holy].”3 The Midrash (Leviticus, Emor, ch. 24) says about this verse: “Can it [truly] be ‘Like Me?’ This is why it continues, ‘for I am Holy’ to teach that My Sanctity is above yours.” And about the foundation of this mitzvah of sanctity the Toras Kohanim4 has “‘be holy’ – be separate”. Nachmanides, in his commentary on the Torah, explains at length this notion of separation as it is stated in this mitzvah, that it is separation from excessive comfort and pleasure – even if they are actions that are not prohibited to us. In one illustrative statement, he writes that it is possible for a person to be disgusting with [what would otherwise be] the permission of the Torah, see his holy words there.
According to this, it would seem the Midrash is incomprehensible. What relevance does the concept of separation have to being similar to the Holy? The verse tells us with regard to this that His Will is not like this. As it says, “Can it [truly] be ‘Like Me?’ This is why it continues, ‘For I am holy’ to teach that My sanctity is higher than yours.” It is more difficult to understand “My sanctity is higher than yours.” This explanation is incumbent upon us to understand – in truth there is some similarity in the holiness He expects of us to His [Holiness], except that His Holiness is more general and inclusive. If we say that the essential idea of the holiness He demands of us (in this mitzvah of “be holy”) is distance from the permissible, that kind of holiness has nothing to do with Him.5
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Weberman: The smoking gun
Rabbi Horowitz After many delays and much legal wrangling, Nechemia Weberman will finally stand trial in Brooklyn Criminal Court on October 30th for allegedly abusing a young girl in the Williamsburg community over a period of three years -- beginning when she was 12 years old. Mr. Weberman is entitled to his day in court and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.[...]
Moreover, it would help undo the denial and cognitive dissonance of those who defend Weberman -- by pointing out how disturbing were the circumstances of his "treatment" of the young girls referred to him.
Think of it this way. Wouldn't alarm bells go off in your mind if a doctor performed an invasive procedure without using latex gloves or if he/she picked up a used syringe to give you an injection? Wouldn't you think it strange if you were a single mother and were requested to meet with your son’s Rebbe or principal at 9 p.m. one evening in a deserted Yeshiva building to discuss your son's progress?
Think of it this way. Wouldn't alarm bells go off in your mind if a doctor performed an invasive procedure without using latex gloves or if he/she picked up a used syringe to give you an injection? Wouldn't you think it strange if you were a single mother and were requested to meet with your son’s Rebbe or principal at 9 p.m. one evening in a deserted Yeshiva building to discuss your son's progress?
Well, those of us familiar with the do's and don'ts of accepted
practice in the mental health profession saw similar blaring warning
lights in our minds, as should you when the facts were made public that
Weberman:
1) Had unregulated access to many girls over a number of years in
his inappropriate and illegal role as their unlicensed "therapist."
2) Had these young girls referred to him for counseling by very
Chassidish schools, whose general level of gender separation far exceeds
those of the typical "Bais Yakov" (and it would be exceedingly rare for
non-Chassidish girls’ schools to regularly refer their Talmidos to a
male therapist)
3) Engaged in private, unsupervised counseling sessions with young
girls -- often in an office/apartment that contained a working bedroom
-- violating all norms of Yichud and Tzniyus.
In addition to all these disturbing facts, it has become clear that
these serious allegations are in fact not isolated ones. In fact, since
Mr. Weberman's arrest, I was personally contacted by immediate family
members of four additional alleged victims of his who are afraid to come
forward, and those of us close to the community have heard similar
reports from others as well. [...]
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)