Volume 63 Number 43
Produced: Thu, 27 Jul 17 06:33:28 -0400
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Birchot hashachar (2)
[Joel Rich]
The Dweck affair (4)
[Martin Stern Michael Rogovin Keith Bierman Susan Buxfield]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Tue, Jul 25,2017 at 06:01 AM
Subject: Birchot hashachar
David Olivestone wrote (MJ 63#42):
> But my experience is that I have rarely noticed anyone, in any morning minyan
> here in Israel or in the galut, who actually does say them together with the
> shaliach tzibbur. What puzzles me further is that most people call out 'baruch
> hu uvaruch shmo', in each brachah, which indicates that they have no intention
> of being yotzei by listening to the chazan's recitation of the berachot.
You also have the issue of knowing whether the prayer leader (I hesitate to call this a shliach tzibbur since
there is no true need for a tzibbur before barchu) has in mind that he is being motzi the congregation
unless you assume "stam [unthought]" intent is sufficient.
Kt
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Poppers <the65pops@...>
Date: Tue, Jul 25,2017 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Birchot hashachar
David Olivestone asked (MJ 63#42):
> Does everyone say the berachot at home, or on the way (I know some people who do
> this), or in shul before the minyan starts?
Based solely on what I've witnessed & heard at my community's minyanim, no, not
everyone.
> But what if you are asked to be the chazan and therefore have to say the
> berachot aloud? Would the halachah allow you to say them a second time, as, for
> example, when repeating kiddush on Shabbat for someone who not yet heard it?
> What if there is no one in shul who has not said them yet?
My non-source-based thought is that the theory of arvus [helping a fellow Jew
fulfill his or her obligation because we're responsible for/spiritually
connected with each other] should apply, but the Rav of my Shul does not want
someone who has already said these b'rachos to say them aloud for others at a
community minyan, and there always is someone (perhaps a minor) who has not yet
said them...
Michael Poppers
Elizabeth, NJ, USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Jul 25,2017 at 03:01 AM
Subject: The Dweck affair
Michael Rogovin wrote (MJ 63#42):
> Much has already been said but I wonder what is it that those who spend their
> time condemning the LBGT community want as their end game. Do they:
>
> (a) want to force people to pretend they are something other than who they
> are? I wonder what kind of homes filled with psychological damage these will
> be
>
> (b) want them to live their lives alone and celibate, or
>
> (c) accept that they are who they are and thus abandon all the other mitzvot.
>
> a and b seem to me to be unrealistic and unlikely at least for most people, so
> we are left with c.
> ...
There seems to me to be a fourth option:
(d) keep their private transgressions private and not expect the community to
validate them.
> Most modern orthodox synagogues do not inquire into the sexual practices of
> straight couples, or if they eat out in non-kosher restaurants, or wear
> sha'atnez (as Leah Gordon pointed out) or conduct their businesses in an
> ethical way (corrupt measures are also to'eva) or keep all of the Shabbat
> rules, rabbinic and divine. This is the only halachic principle that otherwise
> tolerant people base their call for the utter rejection of otherwise observant
> Jews from the community.
I think that the difference is between those who for various personal
reasons violate mitzvot and those who demand that this violation should be
recognised as an "legitimate alternative lifestyle". A less emotive analogy
might be between those who drive to shul on Shabbat and park a few blocks away,
walking from there, and those who demand that the shul carpark be kept open and
their 'right' to use their parking space on Shabbat be acknowleged.
> I do not have a problem with those who assert that certain conduct violates
> the Torah and/or rabbinic rulings. But how we deal with it should be based, at
> least in part, on how we would want to be treated by the community were it us,
> or our son/daughter, who for reasons beyond our control could not keep some
> mitzvah, or even conscientiously chose not to keep a mitzvah, but still sought
> to be a part of the broader orthodox community. The inability to (or decision
> not to) keep one mitzvah should not negate keeping the other ones.
While having sympathy for those who have an inner compulsion to violate a
specific mitzvah [ones], I cannot see how one can condone a demand that such
a violation be acceptable [meizid] - and that is the crucial objection to
the current LGBT campaign.
Pace Leah Gordon (MJ 63#41):
> 1. I notice that no-one is getting all up in arms about sha'atnez ... in
> spite of it being condemned in the harshest terms in the Torah.
When I checked the Torah, I could not find sha'atnez "condemned in the harshest
terms". As far as I can see sha'atnez (Dev. 22:12) is just a plain prohibition
and not designated as to'evah [abomination], as is transgender dressing (Dev.
22:5) and buggery (Vay. 18:22). Perhaps Leah can provide the appropriate reference.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Rogovin <michael@...>
Date: Tue, Jul 25,2017 at 11:01 PM
Subject: The Dweck affair
It seems axiomatic that any orthodox community (shul or other membership
organization) can define who can be a member and who, by their practices would
be excluded. So here is a thought experiment that grew out of an off-line
discussion about my last post (MJ 63#42):
Doni and Tal seek to join Congregation Baruchim Haba'im, a modern orthodox shul.
The relationship between Doni & Tal is _____(see below). What is/are the
appropriate response(s)?
1. The rabbi explains that since the relationship is not one recognized by
halacha, they cannot be a part of the community and should go elsewhere; they
are unfortunately not welcome to pray or participate in communal activity or
join the shul
2. The rabbi explains that since the relationship is not one recognized by
halacha, they are welcome to pray, but should not participate in communal
activities or join
3. They can pray and participate in activities but cannot join
4. They can join as separate individuals; if there are children, one can join as
a family member, the other as a single (with or without financial accommodation)
5. They can join as a household (family) membership but will be listed as
separate individuals in the directory and in any journal ads
6. They can join as a family and be listed as such
7. They will be fully recognized as a family (both parents honored appropriately
during semachot)
8. Regardless of any of the above, their children will be recognized like other
children in the community when achieving milestones (b'nei mitzvah, graduations,
etc)
9. something else (fill in the blank)
Does it matter if the relationship is:
a. unmarried, cohabiting
b. civilly married by not halachicly (no chupah, or married non-orthodox)
c. one or both was previously married and did not give or receive a get
d. they are in polyamorous relationship(s)
e. one (or each) is not halachicly Jewish or Jewish at all
f. they are a same sex couple
--
Michael Rogovin
<michael@...>
voice only (no sms): 201.820.5504
www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrogovin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith Bierman <khbkhb+<h@...>
Date: Wed, Jul 26,2017 at 02:01 AM
Subject: The Dweck affair
Michael Rogovin wrote (MJ 63#42):
> I do not have a problem with those who assert that certain conduct violates
> the Torah and/or rabbinic rulings. But how we deal with it should be based,
> at least in part, on how we would want to be treated by the community were it
> us, or our son/daughter, who for reasons beyond our control could not keep
> some mitzvah, or even conscientiously chose not to keep a mitzvah, but still
> sought to be a part of the broader orthodox community. The inability to (or
> decision not to) keep one mitzvah should not negate keeping the other ones.
Some years ago, my brother (same parents) and I invested in a house and lived
together in it. He wasn't particularly observant, so when the schul refused us a
family membership, he simply didn't come to shul (even on R"H and Y"K, which he
previously observed). I found that disappointing, to say the least. But it does
inspire the following:
It seems to me that a compromise should be possible. Define "Family Membership"
to generally be two adults and any number of children residing at the same
address (leave an optout for including grandparents or others, if desired ...
thus the word 'generally').
LBGQT members of an observant shul shouldn't have to "hide" but neither should
they militate for "lifestyle choices", we should all observe tsniyut [modesty]
and just as we wouldn't tolerate cheeseburger eaters to exhort the glory of one
vendor over another (within the community), we shouldn't expect lectures on
sexual techniques from our fellow members.
Whether the adults in such a family membership are simply platonic room-mates,
biological or step siblings, or have an intimate relationship shouldn't be the
subject of gossip within the community. And questions of whether the parties
are, or are not observing the strictures of halacha in their bedroom shouldn't
be a fit topic for discussion. Most public displays of affection (PDAs) aren't
fit for schul anyway (tsniyut!), so such couples shouldn't feel discriminated
against because such behavior isn't acceptable in schul ... it isn't for them,
nor for heterosexual couples, unmarried couples, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Susan Buxfield <susan.buxfeld@...>
Date: Wed, Jul 26,2017 at 03:01 PM
Subject: The Dweck affair
Michael Rogovin (MJ 63#42) wrote:
> Much has already been said but I wonder what is it that those who spend their
> time condemning the LBGT community want as their end game. Do they:
> (a) want to force people to pretend they are something other than who they
> are?
> I wonder what kind of homes filled with psychological damage these will be
...
...
> Being observant requires a community, and schools.
Michael has raised two interesting issues.
1. When a person refuses to desist from what the Torah forbids, how is it
possible to remain a member of the Orthodox community.
2. Orthodox recognition of the LGBT community
Non-Orthodox communities do not have a problem since their understanding of
Judaism is in the main humanistic, being a theology devoid of divine requirements.
However trying to convince a truly Orthodox community to be accepting of sexual
improprieties is surely an halachic impossibility.
The issue is really two way: just as Michael is concerned about the
psychological damage, so too he should be aware of the potential damage to the
fabric of the community of which he wishes to be a member. Presumably the vast
majority would be afraid of his possible influence on themselves and their
offspring.
Orthodox recognition of an LGBT community is also a big no-no.
The current sexual classifications (LGBTQ) have been known from time immemorial.
Homosexuality (including Bisexuality) and Transgender are forbidden in the
written Torah, the former being considered an abomination. Lesbianism is also
mentioned in the Oral Torah and Halacha as being forbidden.
However none of these types of people were ever classed as a group such as were
the Leviim and Cohanim.
The Talmud does mention that when a person cannot control himself from a sin, he
should run away to another city that does not know him before sinning.
Since most of the medical world consider sexual deviance as usually being a
psychological aberration, the usual practical suggestion to those who wish to
vanquish those inclinations is to get involved in projects far removed from
sexuality, and far removed from those groups that purport to legitimise immoral
behavior.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 63 Issue 43
