Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is from another thread where we went slightly off topic, and I thought this deserved a thread of its own:
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad
The obligation, AFAIK is to daven 3 times a day - not to daven in shul (or even with a minyan) 3 times a day. Go to any modern O shul, and AFAICT the folks making the daily minyans, even on Monday and Thursday, are a small group of regulars, plus people needing to say Kaddish. The tendency to go to make a point of davening with a minyan 21 times a week is for the particularly pious. In fact its my strong impression (from inlaws who made a point to get shul while traveling BECAUSE they had to say kaddish - from people davening without a minyan on airplanes, etc) that even many haredim will daven alone when circumstances require.
And of course lots of observant men both C and O fail in their obligation to daven 3 times a day period - and are not stricken by lightning, quaking at their fate in the afterlife, or feeling they have angered hashem. The view of what obligation entails, and the desirability of not being obligated, though it has support in much jewish metahalachic literature, is not the universal view of (religious) Am Israel.
Nonetheless - most of the C rabbinate is reluctant to impose a blanket obligation on all women - in part to avoid putting more people in the position of being in violation. The mainstream opinion (following the Roth tshuva) is that only women who voluntarily obligate themselves are bound by postive timebound mitzvot. In theory that means only those should be counted in a minyan - but in practice asking individuals if they are or not, when its time to daven, is not done. (just as if a man who is a Jew by Choice shows up, we do not interrogate them on the nature of the conversion ceremony) Also of course there are SOME C poskim who go beyond the Roth tshuva to a more fully egalitarian halachic opinion - that all Jewish women are so bound today - they do not find the Roth position viable, either halachically, or in terms of what it does to the egalitarian nature of the movement.
Do the Conservative Tshuvah's take normative halacha (do they quote a Torah source?) in mind when issuing a decree that women count towards a minyan? Or is there a standard that includes the "evolution" of Jewish thought on the matter in order to issue a tshuvah or a psak?
BBD said above:
Quote:
The tendency to go to make a point of davening with a minyan 21 times a week is for the particularly pious. In fact its my strong impression (from inlaws who made a point to get shul while traveling BECAUSE they had to say kaddish - from people davening without a minyan on airplanes, etc) that even many haredim will daven alone when circumstances require.
That's interesting that the view of davening in a minyan in shul is only for the particularly pious or for those saying Kaddish. Perhaps it's because I daven in a shtiebel (very small shul, where in my case the Rabbi's house serves as the "synagogue"), that we do not view the minyan as only for the pious. We view it as an obligation on ALL the men. The daily minyan is the foundation upon which our shul exists, and the Rabbi has said on numerous occasions that if we do not consistently have a minyan 3 times a day, then he will quit, kick the shul out of his house (and in effect, close the shul).
It's a constant struggle to ensure I'm in shul for minyan 3 times a day, every day of my life. At this time of year, however, when mincha is at 5:05 pm due to the placement of the winter sun, I simply cannot get out of work to make it to Mincha in shul. So I close my office door and daven mincha in the office. We have a 9pm Maariv minyan at shul, and for me, that's the sweetest minyan of the day, and I rarely if ever miss. By then, I'm home from work, dinner is done, kids are in bed, and Mrs. Flop is thrilled to get me out of the house for a bit. I view the minyan as my opportunity to piggyback my tefillos on the back of my fellow men in shul, who also attend minyan daily and for whom I have enormous respect, giving us a "tank" from which to storm the gates of shemayim with our requests. Davening on own's own without a minyan - well, that's a pretty harsh spotlight on my individual tefillos, and I believe they simply are not as effective as when combined with the tefillos of the sibur (congregation).
It's a true test for Shacharis in the morning, however, if my leaving to daven in shul (6:25am this morning for Rosh Chodesh, but normally at 6:40am) will occassionaly put my wife in tears, as it's hard to get our brood of kids ready for school by herself. It brings the classic question, which wins out? Shalom bayis (peace in the home) or my obligation to daven with a minyan. Depends who you ask what answer you'll get.
Do the Conservative Tshuvah's take normative halacha (do they quote a Torah source?) in mind when issuing a decree that women count towards a minyan? Or is there a standard that includes the "evolution" of Jewish thought on the matter in order to issue a tshuvah or a psak?
Im not really all that qualified to discourse on Conservative metahalacha - and my strong impression is that different poskim and other thinkers in the movement are not 100% in agreement on their metahalacha. In general in the tshuvot I have read, they not only quote written torah, and the talmud, but references are made to the codes, and even to achronim. Though in some instances they may not be using the sources in quite the same way as Orthodox authorities might - but IIUC that will depend on the issue, and the invididual posek.
This came up fairly dramatically in the gay ordination question, where there were essentially three tshuvot that came before the CJLS. I will go into as far as I understand. The Roth tshuva opposed it. The Dorff tshuva supported it - with a very detailed discourse on what actually constitutes "lying with a man as with a woman" (and thus is forbidden d'oraita rather than d'rabbanan) Roth and Dorff disagreed, and in support of their respective positions delved into usages of such language in other instances cases in the talmud, and appealed to Rambam and Ramban in support of each of their positions. Roth, in attacking Dorffs position, said IIUC that Dorff over relied on Ramban.
Im not sure if that kind of discussion counts as "normative halacha" in your opinion. Clearly R' Dorff was reading the overall tendency of the mesorah in a way radically different from the way its been understood for centuries - and with a view toward essentially an aggadic "social equity" goal. But he did it with a detailed halachic argument.
both the roth and Dorff tshuvot were accepted by the CJLS (a minority opinion that gets enough votes is accepted as one local rabbis can rely on if they choose - and in this case both received majority votes, since one rabbi on CJLS voted for both - not wanting either to become established as only a minority opinion)
A third tshuva was advanced, much more metahalachilly radical, by R Tucker. he basically stated that, due to our understanding of the human element in the origin of the Torah, its permissible for contemporary rabbis to lift a ban found in torah d'oraita, at least in cases involving profound issues of human dignity. CJLS decided that that was takanah, not a simple tshuva, therefore needing a larger majority to pass, and it failed.
As for the roth tshuva on womens obligations, I think that was pretty heavily researched as well. Rabbi Roth has in recent years been one of the movements leading halachists. However in recent years he has withdrawn from CJLS (although not from the movement).
Last edited by brooklynborndad; 12-14-2012 at 02:05 PM..
I view the minyan as my opportunity to piggyback my tefillos on the back of my fellow men in shul, who also attend minyan daily and for whom I have enormous respect, giving us a "tank" from which to storm the gates of shemayim with our requests. Davening on own's own without a minyan - well, that's a pretty harsh spotlight on my individual tefillos, and I believe they simply are not as effective as when combined with the tefillos of the sibur (congregation).
the entire notion of the effectiveness of tefillos in getting requests, would strike most of my fellow congregants (though not all) as offputtingly magical thinking.
Or is there a standard that includes the "evolution" of Jewish thought on the matter in order to issue a tshuvah or a psak?
My understanding is that the dominant metahalachic view in the movement is that halachic decisions have historically not been rendered in a vacuum, but are responses to the needs of Am Israel, and which often followed and provided textual justification for innovations of that Solomon Schecter confusingly called "catholic Israel" ie the broad community of mostly observant Jews (it can't be 100% observant of existing law, or else all who made any innovation would be excluded by definition). However this does not allow the rabbinate to simply invoke that popular innovation without textual backing. The nature of the textual backing, etc, etc are again among the metahalachic questions different authorities within the movement disagree on. note also that some rabbis believed that Karo could be overriden, not by citing a prior minority opinion, but by the takanah of the CJLS.
This tshuva attempts to encapsulate some of the decisions on the status of women and prayer..
note that some of the issues we are discussing have come up - Does the abilility to be counted entail an obligation? (Note one rabbi citing the case of counting a minor counted for birkat hamazon, and another disputing that) The question of metahalacha - note one group of rabbis asserting that in the case of a position not codified till the Shulchan Aruch (that ten means ten men) one earlier authority in support of the opposite position is sufficient to rely on (to meet our modern needs) but others suggesting that is not sufficient.
Last edited by brooklynborndad; 12-14-2012 at 01:35 PM..
At the conclusion of his responsum Rabbi Golinkin takes issue with one point of Rabbi Roth’s
responsum. Rabbi Roth had argued against the general imposition of equal obligation upon women by
a vbe, “because the imposition of legal obligation by vbe, would make noncompliance with the dictates
of the vbe, sinful. That would result in the creation of a large class of sinners where none now
exists.”78 Rabbi Golinkin, who through his responsum achieves a result similar to the imagined vbe,
by Rabbi Roth, responds that he sees no other way to read the classical sources except to conclude that women are already obligated to pray the same as men.79 That is, the “large class of sinners” already exists. Rabbi Roth had continued his theoretical objection that no “segment of the Conservative movement should seek to impose a set of obligations not already recognized by the tradition upon any
woman who is satisfied with the status quo.”80 Rabbi Golinkin responds that the decisions of rabbis
are not necessarily binding on those who do not choose to abide by them.81 “Any woman who is
satisfied by the status quo” will not be guided by a decision permitting women to count in the minyan.
But while Rabbi Roth’s concern might have been for traditionally trained women who did not consider
themselves obligated equally with men for prayer, he was probably more concerned with the greater
mass of women of “egalitarian” congregations who are counted in the minyan by virtue of the 1973
Law Committee decision which makes no demands on obligation. If we say that to count in the
minyan women must be equally obligated to prayer and we then continue to count all women equally
in a minyan we are then saying that a great mass of tens of thousands of women have suddenly become “sinners.” We must consider what we mean by “sin” and then ask ourselves whether we see this as problematic. It is unlikely that women of the Conservative movement would consider their obligations and their shortcomings any differently than do the men of the Conservative movement. The “New Proposal” below discusses the halakhic and theoretical implications of this condition"
the entire notion of the effectiveness of tefillos in getting requests, would strike most of my fellow congregants (though not all) as offputtingly magical thinking.
For sure, then, this would be a fundamental difference between Orthodox and other Jews. We Torah Jews believe that every single request asked of Hashem gets a "readiing" im shemayim. That Hashem is involved in every single decision we make each day, and that He probes our innermost thoughts on a minute-by-minute basis. Quite simply put, a loving G-d is an involved G-d. And He continues to show Himself to us every single day of our life. In return, we daven to Hashem knowing that He cares and that He is deeply involved in our lives.
In terms of my comment of "storming the gates of shemayim with out tefillos," I have seen this work effectively on many occasions with the sick, with those unable to have babies, etc. Some good examples:
There are three families in my small shul who have been "public" about their inability to have children. On average, each of these three couples has tried for 5-10 years unsuccessfully. There are two big Chassidish rebbes who come to our shul for one Shabbos each year to collect for their small yeshivos in Israel. They are fully available to offer brachos for those who need them. Last year, all three of these families decided to ask these 2 rebbes for a bracha to have children. Within 3 months, all three families confirmed they were pregnant - each on the first try after receiving their bracha. One of these families even asked the rebbes for twins. They now have two beautiful twin babies. (the family who had twins did shoo a mother bird from the nest the same week they got their bracha from the rebbes, so it's hard to say what encouraged Hashem to grant their request).
Also, there were 3 young women in my community who were on the gates of death due to complications in childbirth. In each of these 3 cases, a thousand or more Jews in my town gathered to say tehillim for them for days and weeks at a time. All three miraculously survived, with the doctors giving the proverbial "there's no medical explanation for their survival."
These examples are not urban myth. These are all friends of mine and my wife. These examples could be repeated over and over again in nearly every frum community in the world. Do you non-frum Jews never have such experiences? Why does Hashem not listen to your tefillos when He clearly listens to ours? Your tefillos are not in the same format as Jews who follow the tefillos set by the anshai kenesis hagadola, right? Perhaps it's time to get onboard with your fellow Jews, and then reap all the rewards a close relationship with Hashem will give you?
For sure, then, this would be a fundamental difference between Orthodox and other Jews. We Torah Jews believe that every single request asked of Hashem gets a "readiing" im shemayim.
My strong impression is that there are many modern Orthodox who are with the non-Orthodox on this one. Its quite possible to believe in a directly divinely written Torah M'Sinai, in the sacred and more or less infallible quality of chazal on halacha, in the bindingness of the Shulchan Aruch, in the formalist approach to halachic interpretation, and other issues that seperate a C outlook from a modern O outlook, without believing literally in that kind of return to prayer.
(note there are also a few non-Orthodox who are with the Haredim on this one - its possible to believe hashem answers prayers in the way you think of, without believing in the O approach to interpreting halacha, etc, etc. )
These examples are not urban myth. These are all friends of mine and my wife. These examples could be repeated over and over again in nearly every frum community in the world. Do you non-frum Jews never have such experiences? Why does Hashem not listen to your tefillos when He clearly listens to ours?
I dont know of any studies, but my impression is that theres no evidence that frum do better than non frum in cancer survival rates, infant mortality, etc, etc.
What you are not counting is all those instances where someone prays intensely and does not get a "reward" for it - at least the reward is not a literal answer to their prayer.
Quite simply put, a loving G-d is an involved G-d.
not necessarily - there are lots of approaches, some deeply rooted in Jewish tradition, that would reconcile Hashems love with His NOT being involved in that way.
And I would suggest that ANY attempt to analyize G-d's love in human terms (G-d loves us, ergo he MUST do X or Y) is veering dangerously close to idolatry - its suggesting a human ability to understand what is beyond all human understanding.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
