88 Responses to News & Links

1. Hoffa Araujo on January 23, 2013 at 4:48 pm

   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.
2. Steve Brizel on January 23, 2013 at 5:21 pm

   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.
3. ruvie on January 23, 2013 at 6:19 pm

   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).?
4. Steve Brizel on January 23, 2013 at 6:31 pm

   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.
5. ruvie on January 23, 2013 at 8:02 pm

   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)
6. ruvie on January 23, 2013 at 8:05 pm

   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?
7. MiMedinat HaYam on January 23, 2013 at 8:14 pm

   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”.
8. IH on January 24, 2013 at 5:14 pm

   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.”
9. mycroft on January 24, 2013 at 6:09 pm

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

    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.
11. IH on January 24, 2013 at 8:39 pm

    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
12. Nachum on January 25, 2013 at 1:29 am

    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.
13. J. on January 25, 2013 at 3:16 am

    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
14. J. on January 25, 2013 at 3:18 am

    Sorry, last link should have been:
    http://www.thejc.com/node/100184
15. mycroft on January 25, 2013 at 8:14 am

    “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,”
16. ruvie on January 25, 2013 at 10:23 am

    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
17. Hoffa Araujo on January 25, 2013 at 10:28 am

    Reading about the suppression of reporting abuse and Ben Greenberg’s inviting Keshet to his congregation make me fill ill. Oy vey iz mir!
18. Steve Brizel on January 25, 2013 at 11:41 am

    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.
19. Steve Brizel on January 25, 2013 at 11:46 am

    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.
20. IH on January 25, 2013 at 11:59 am

    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.
21. ruvie on January 25, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    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
22. Wondering on January 25, 2013 at 1:09 pm

    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?
23. midwood on January 25, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    http://somehowfrum.blogspot.com/2013/01/fearless-flatbushers-fight-fraudsters.html

    Flatbush Rabbis against Fraud. About time.
24. IH on January 25, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    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.”
25. Steve Brizel on January 25, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    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.
26. Steve Brizel on January 25, 2013 at 1:30 pm

    For those interested, Mishpacha also had a wonderful interview with R P Stolper, the founding national director of NCSY.
27. ruvie on January 25, 2013 at 1:47 pm

    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.
28. Tal Benschar on January 25, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    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.
29. Richard on January 25, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    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.)
30. mycroft on January 26, 2013 at 6:23 pm

    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.
31. IH on January 26, 2013 at 9:41 pm

    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.’ “
32. IH on January 27, 2013 at 12:04 am

    The parallels are striking: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/us/politics/as-republicans-debate-future-direction-one-senator-steps-aside.html
33. mycroft on January 27, 2013 at 9:57 am

    “joel rich on January 23, 2013 at 12:31 pm
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNwAv6zpmh4
    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.
34. Shlomo on January 27, 2013 at 1:19 pm

    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.)
35. Steve Brizel on January 27, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    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.”
36. 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.
    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.
37. mycroft on January 28, 2013 at 5:57 am

    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.
38. Rabbi Y.H.Henkin on January 30, 2013 at 11:18 am

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