I gather they're not catering to women's tefilah groups. 
Perhaps I shouldn't admit, but their shas does take a fair chunk of my intellectual effort. True, I often fall short at Learning the gemara, but I can do that w/o Artscroll too.
Its a shame you may have had to buy it in order to review it properly. I saw the ads for it, and was wondering what exactly about it would irritate me the most. Thanks for getting me the answer without having to add to the Artscroll cofers(or would that be kofers? )
kaspit - i've read your blog and your comments. If artscroll is trying to dumb you down, they're failing miserably.
dilbert - i never buy books that i know other people will be getting rid of. In 2 weeks, harry potter 6 will be available on ebay for $5 (or maybe i can just buy it off of Greg when he's done). Same goes here.
>ArtScroll 'paskens' that it's 'generally frowned upon'
To be fair, Artscroll isn't 'paskening' anything, but making a perfectly true statement about this issue wrt to its core constituency.
That said, I don't like it anymore than you do.
great rant.
You can not buy it off me, since it's not for sale (the only reason I buy it is because I spend so much time on the Internet, it would be impossible for it not to be spoiled for me). I'm very particular about my books (which is why, as you may have noticed, I have no Artscroll Gemaras in my house).
i'm curious - do they do this for other issues too, or just womens issues?
The women that this "siddur" is directed at,do not mind this condecension.
they are the type of female that has extra "kavana" for the bracha of "she`asani kirtzono".
they also believe that women have "special status" in the frum world.
These girls actually think that "shelo assani isha" means something other than what it (obviously) does.
Since when do women conduct the mitzvah of zimmun?
Since when do women say kadish?
I haven’t seen a copy my self (only the ad), but does it have any haskomos from anywhere? I don’t know about their set up but am sure its not just a few guys sitting together writing what they feel best, but have put together a siddur based on some authority (although I may be wrong). The fact that they then go and promote it (or that it has now been universally accepted) as Artscoll being the only way through all aspects of Judaism, is what should be addressed.
Being a frum Jew, I have heard women bentch gomel and say kaddish, and try and avoid Artscroll like the plague, but when in need, Artscoll is there as a point of reference
To the author of the blog:
I like your writing style; it's well written, good English, minimal typos. Generally level headed.
But before you blow yourself away in your terse attack on Artscroll, and I do not negate in any way what you've said, I think it's appropriate to think a little more.
Realize the huge extent of the good that Artscroll has done in past years; they have revolutionized and raised the bar of contemporary, modern Jewish literature. The classical ArtScroll siddur is aesthetically pleasing, very carefully crafted to include only essential commentary, clear and comprehensive instructions, and a solid, uncomplicated text.
In summary: don't write off ArtScroll just because they may make some silly decisions with a book or two. They've also contributed a world of good.
Kevod haRav-
I'm surprised to find out that there were Rishonim who held in the applicability of a 'mixed' zimun - with all my liberal hippy friends I'd have thought I'd have encountered that source already. Can you give more info? Don't other rishonim conclude that a 'mixed' zimun is immodest? The article I'd read on women and zimun (in the Edah journal?) seemed to say that inexplicably, for all the authorities who held by men's zimun and women's zimun (in a place with less than a minyan of men), the idea of a 'mixed' zimun wasn't found anywhere.
personally too many people think that artscroll is Hashem's gift to man. Yes, their shas is nice to look at when you're stuck on the 78th page of Makkot, but you can't learn out of it.
Their Halacha series are nice and concise, but therin lies the problem; too concise and almost always taking the machmir position (or that of Moshe Feinstein above all others).
As for their Siddur, I'm not a fan. I much more prefer the typeset of the Rinat Yisrael.
Abdullah -
For beautiful fonts, I'd recommend also the Siddur Vilna (not sure who publishes it, found in fine Boro Park judaica book stores)
Roundest, happiest letters you've ever seen.
Another good one is the Koren publishers siddur, if you prefer a more intense-looking typeface.
Davenning out of Artscroll always felt like davenning off a computer screen for me. (blech)
Artscroll is popular because it fills a need. The criticisms in these comments (and the blog- b'mechilas k'vodcha) are unfounded and inane.
"So there can be no complexity, nothing left up to the reader's discretion, nothing left up to differing sensibilities, instincts, intuitions, or customs."
Rabbi, you want people to make their own decisions? To think for themselves? Throughout our history- from Moses to Sandy Koufax- great rabbis and writers have brought the bible to the masses. Bear in mind that your diatribe against Nosson Scherman is what others said about the Bais Yosef.
All your comments should be directed at today's Jews. Leave Artscroll out of this.
I think the ADDeRabbi's argument is that what Artscroll is doing is *not* bringing Torah to the masses.
I don't buy that, Alan. They are. (In the words of Bilaam, Yihi acharesi komohu!).
As far as the issues of zimun and kaddish are concerned, I've never- in my entire life- encountered women making their own zimun (and yes, I know the gemara in Brachos, SA, etc.). (I have seen women say kaddish, but I don't know enough of the background on that issue. I'll defer to the rabbi.) Artscroll is accurately depicting the prevalent minhag. Just because there are women who do make zimun, doesn't mean that that is the minhag. Artscroll's target demographic doesn't do it. Period. You can argue till you're blue in the face that it's muttar, and maybe a chiyuv, and that it should be done, but that won't change the fact that it's not done. Let me ask you, do you wash your hands within 4 amos of your bed in the morning? Do you wear nifutz lishma tzitzis? How about cholov yisrael. Or Chadash!! (there's a biggie). There are plenty of things that should be done that minhag ignores. Whether or not that is proper, is a topic for another blog. The fact is that the minhag is firmly established. Lay off of them. They’re fragile.
As someone who began using ArtScroll siddurim when he knew nothing about Halakha, minhag, or anything else relating to Frumkeit (i choose my yiddish carefully), I will say that there is a rather significant proble with how ArtScroll presents its commentary: Although the layout and various siddur models available seems to suggest that their siddurim are "learners'" siddurim, they take advantage of the ignorance of many beginners and present their opinions in teh same manner as halakha. Unless you have people to ask, or are willing to struggle through other less immediately friendly looking siddurim, you will never realize how much latitude there is for choice. Then you run the opposite risk; when someone who got too machmir too fast realizes tha tthey didn't have to do everything the artscroll way, they might get very aggressive in throwing stuff out that they mayhaps shouldn't. Afterall, if you can't tell by looking at the text what is "flexible" you also can't use it to determine what isn't.
Fred, I see your point, but you must realize that it is not just ArtScroll's target audience that are using their Siddurim. Large numbers of not-so-Frum to MO people are using their siddurim. Besides that, it seems to me that they gear their works to the Frum crowd with the knowledge that they will be read by their "non-target" audience.
Personally the mentschstik thing to do would to leave other minhagim in there (Hey Ashkenaz crowd, look at us crazy Sefardim and what we're doing). But no, it's 1984 and ArtScroll (or is that Big Brother) is going to pretend that theres only one right way to do things.
Then your argument that it's not done, and nothing the ADDeRabbi says or does is going to change that, is pointless. Education is the key to life. If the Orthodox world didn't have such horrible teachers in Day Schools (I have a great idea, pay them well...) we'd see better Jews that are more informed. Maybe then when you argue that Alan Scott you'd get a good discussion, rather than sounding condescending.
It may be accurate to say that women's zimmun and kaddish is generally frowned upon.
It would be even more accurate to say "although it is often frowned upon, there is no halachic issue with doing so".
Cause plenty of people who don't know better will assume that there is an actual reason to frown upon it.
And I would love to see any sources discussing mixed zimmun-- like alan, I've always heard none existed.
Abdullah:
Take a look at the Artscroll Aveilus book. Do you know what the number 1 (and only) complaint about that book is? "It lists every minhag in the world, and I just don't know what to do"! Honest. I've heard that from more than a few people.
This is to be used as a practical book (as opposed to primarily for education). People look to it for guidance on how to perform. It's in English for a reason.
And, by the way, I have nothing against Alan Scott, and I didn't mean to sound condescending. Alls I'm saying is that I'd like RNS's points when the game is over. I'm calmer than you.
Once again, I reiterate; Maran's blog and the subsequent sycophantic comments should be directed at the current state of Judaism, not at Artscroll.
Should I give ArtScroll a Cookie or a Statue for their Aveilus book? I'm sure it's quite useful, and I had no idea that they even had an aveilus book until you mentioned it, but that in no way makes up for their mistakes here.
Oh and by the way, I know you don't have anything against Alan.
As for the current state of Judaism, well you're right again with that, but ArtScroll is feeding into it. Sure, it's a buisness and their out to make money, but we should expect more out of our Torah leaders. That's why Rambam tells us not to pay Rabbis.
>else relating to Frumkeit (i choose my yiddish carefully).
Well done. Ask 100 people and at least 95 wouldn't know what "yiddishkeit" means--or meant.
>the subsequent sycophantic comments
That's not condescending?
Does anyone know what authoratative backing Artscroll have? (If any.) I know the Gemoras had, but what about any of the other works. This is not like any sefer with an author, but an organization. Writing is one thing. Translating is another. Giving a commentary or explanation is very subjective. It is part of this generation, where we expect everything on a plate, you just need to be wary of it.
I also think the the fonts used are like reading from a computer screen, despite them changing the sizing in some places.
Greg - c'mon. you've got 2 copies!
Alan and rivka- check out Tur OC Siman 199 quoting from R' Yehuda Ha-kohen, and HoJo adds that the Mordechai brings the same opinion in the name of R' Simcha of Vitri. Most Rishonim understand that the 'pritzusa' that prevents the 'tzeiruf' of women and slaves extends to women and all men.
Fred wrote:
> I've never- in my entire life- encountered women making their own zimun
That's nice. I have.
>Rabbi, you want people to make their own decisions?
Yes.
>Bear in mind that your diatribe against Nosson Scherman is what others said about the Bais Yosef.
Not the Beis Yosef, the Shulchan Arukh. The HoJo DOES quote multiple opinions, etc. The Shulchan Arukh was his cliff notes on the HoJo, and when Maharshal criticized, he wasn't criticizing the work per se, rather its mass acceptance. After all, Maharshal undertook a similar project himself. And last but not least, Nosson Scherman is no Maran.
>Artscroll is accurately depicting the prevalent minhag.
In certain circles, perhaps. But even so, their goal is to be proscriptive, not descriptive.
Abdullah:
>Hey Ashkenaz crowd, look at us crazy Sefardim and what we're doing
ArtScroll is holding out for a bigger check from the Saffra family before releasing the 'ArtScroll Sephardic Siddur'.
rivka:
> It may be accurate to say that women's zimmun and kaddish is generally frowned upon.
My point was that it's WRONG to frown on people, especially orphans, regardless of the halakhic issue involved. PerhapsArtScroll should have written "Although it is generally accepted that women do not recite the mourner's Kaddish, one must take special care not to cause any discomfort to a woman who engages in this practice, especially since she has evidently lost a loved one in the recent past". Is that so bad?
Excellent post and thread.
Artscroll does fill a need, but it is one of the worst purveyors of Orthodox political correctness in existence. If I recall correctly, they took out sections of "My Uncle the Netziv" because it said he read a newspaper on Shabbos. There is such fear of being branded a kofer (and Artscroll wants to protect its significant revenue stream) that Artscroll will always play it safe and avoid offending its base. Offending those who are more flexible is the lesser of evils for Artscroll.
I have to point out that the Artscroll Hebrew font (Hadassah) is extraordinarily bad for reading large amounts of text, as in a siddur or chumash. They chose it in the seventies and now they are too stubborn to fix it.
I am curious - does the "Women's Siddur" include kiddush?
Altogether, with its many faults, I would have to say that Artscroll has done much more good than bad.
>the subsequent sycophantic comments
That's not condescending?
No, that one was. I was on a roll. Sorry.
Thanks for the mea culpa, Fred.
>ArtScroll is holding out for a bigger check from the Saffra family before releasing the 'ArtScroll Sephardic Siddur'.
They've already gotten into the Sephardi book market. See 'The Sephardic Heritage Haggadah" and "Allepo: City of Scholars".
I was wondering about 'Aleppo, City of Scholars'.
Was it ArtScroll's (rather poor) response to Hayyim Sabato's 'Emet me-Are"tz Titzmach', translated into english as 'Aleppo Tales'?
Do they want to present a 'frummer' version of life there?
We can say the same thing about their 'Perek Shirah'; it's much prettier than RNSlifkin's commentary, but sorely lacks in content.
> I was wondering about 'Aleppo, City of Scholars'.
I'm not sure. It may be what you said, it may be an altruistic recognition that there are more Jews that need to be paid attention to.
I think in general one should be a little less prone to conspiracy theories about Artscroll. Although they are responsible for things which some of us deplore and they are also responsible for things which some of us applaud, I suspect that there is less nefarious scheming going on there then people think.
i don't think it's nefarious.
i think that they look to exploit a market when they see it. r' sabato's book showed that there's a market, and artscroll moved into it.
it's not a conspiracy. it's just business.
In my neighborhood (Washington Heights) women's zimum are very common. Some girls participate and some don't, but everytime there are more than 3 girls with no guys around it at least comes up.
Fred wrote:
> I've never- in my entire life- encountered women making their own zimun
well, when I was in NCSY in HS, it was the only way to go (not that there were very many occasions without the boys around).
Once I was out of school and inviting friends for seudah shlishit (no men, so we could sing) zimun depended on who was there any given week; we compromised on needing 3 willing to "officially" participate.
Yeshivish FFBs with yichus generally would not, BTs or MO FFBs were more likely to. But they made me lead; my house meant no excuse and everyone else thought "chaverotai" sounded odd (now that I think about it, I'm not sure who suggested the phrasing. hmm.)
Rav Dovid Cohen has openly said that he discourages womens zimmun these days as in most cases it is motivated by feminism. In which case, he says, it would be assur de'oraisa because of bechukosayhem.
You may disagree with this, but I suspect that a majority of poskim would discourage it too for the same reason.
Most of your analysis doesnt address this issue which is more of a contemporary issue. Had womens zimmun been regular practice throughout the ages this issue would not be a problem since every woman would have been doing it.
Actually the use of "chaverotai" is 75 years old. Kibbutz HaDati uses it in common meals. Technically they have to since the correct title of a member of a kibbutz is not Mr. but Comrade or Partner (aka Chaver), thereby making the correct call for bentching Chaverotai Neverach. All of thier benchers have both Chaverotai and Rabbotai printed on it as a result.
My guess is that sicne the Israeli religious women's femenist movement is full of interaction with Kibbutz Hadati, since it is considered the most radicaly liberal of all dati factions.
(Two cases in Point: Midreshet Lindenbaum aka Brovenders was the first MO Midrasha, but was officially Anglo, though israeilis did join. The first Official Isreali program was on Ein Hanatziv, and was oringally meant as an unoffical pre-army program
The second is that the Isreali version of halachic prenups where developed by talimidim of the Yeshiva at Ein Tzurim, and they are now required if one wants to get married on a kibbutz)
Probably one person talked to another person or interacted with anohter person, and now all women are socialists
Dude - i hope to address that issue in a separate post.
RSZA is reported to have encouraged the practice.
To discourage s/t that smacks of feminism is one thing, but 'bechukoteihem'? please. you'll have to do a lot of work to convince anyone that an ancient but optional uniquely Jewish observance which is encouraged because of 'alien' values is bechukoteihem. besides, even if it was true 25 years ago, it's so much the norm today that it's not perceived as a feminist agenda anymore. They've moved on to bigger and better things.
>even if it was true 25 years ago, it's so much the norm today that it's not perceived as a feminist agenda anymore.
It's not perceived that way?
I think you're mixing up your circles. In R. Dovid Cohen's world something like this most certainly is rare-to-nonexistent and is perceived exactly like that. For better or worse, that circle is pretty large too.
that may very well be. but we're discussing whether ArtScroll is justified in completely ignoring that other circle, regardless of how small it is (and it's not all that small).
I don't think the other circle is small at all. You're right though. Artscroll tries to reach a broad audience, and evidence of that is everywhere. That being the case a little bit of a broader outlook should be the rule unless it wants to be guilty of what it is charged with, religious imperialism. I think there is still some room for broadening without making its core mad, which of course it cannot and should not be expected to do.
I have a question. What kind of definition is "Dude" using for "bechukotehem"? It doesn't seem to me that "feminism" (the idea that women should be respected in their human autonomy and judged according to their own standards, and not the objectifications of men) would qualify as a frivolous foreign practice. It seems more like the re-application of an old Jewish one (kevod habriyot, most of the sayings in pirkei avot, general menschlishkeit, chaviv adam shenivrah betselem, avadim lahashem velo avadim la-avadim, etc.) to a wider audience. It's not coincidence that many of the early suffragettes in America were Jewish.
So "feminism" + zimun seems extremely Jewish to me. "Dude" may be suffering from the "(some) Goyim believe in it so it's automatically anti-Torah" fallacy.
The Artscroll intended-audience has always been broad. They are like Community Kollels - for the community but never representing the host community as it actually is. My community hosts black hatters, as well as learned Zionists and Torah-uMada-style talmedi chachomim. But the Community Kollel would never have any of them speak at a function much less be a member. Likewise, Artscroll addresses the broad community of the observant, but we only hear one voice of that community in their work.
I too have objections to Artscroll, particularly what they did with Shir ha-Shirim in their siddur -- translating allegorically instead of literally. Boy, they must have been scared!
Yes.
Your Torah Scholars provide protection, like towers.
Allan, it is not my own assessment that feminist activism is Bechutohehem, it is a verbatim quote from Rav Dovid Cohen. Further, your red herring definition of feminism is shallow and ignores the very real anti-torah and anti-tradition attitudes inherent in much of contemporary feminism. I choose to be a realist and address feminism as it is, not to address a hypothetical version of feminism.
Anyone who think that all religioud feminism is can be defined as you have is truly fooling themselves.
Dude -
By your statements re: feminism, you're trying to turn a "critique" into an "enemy". Of course there are self-described feminists who oppose parts and even all of our religion. However they are not the issue. Of course we disagree with them. But they are just individuals with specific agendas within a larger critique of society, which is what "feminism" actually is. It's the pointing out that a lot of unfair stuff have happened to women historically and now, for no other reason than that they are women and that certain men were able to impose things upon them.
That critique, and the sensitivity it (and the Torah) enjoins us to have towards half the human race, is legitimate and self-evident.
You can't paint an observation with the politics that *some* people take based on that observation.
Also: "Anyone who think that all religioud feminism is can be defined as you have is truly fooling themselves." sounds pretty paranoid, and not unlike the illegitimate argument of "we should never listen to the concerns of women (etc.) because by definition they are not acting lishma, but for some nefarious selfish purpose."
Dude-
Perhaps feminism is the hidden impetus for women wanter their 'own' siddur in the first place!
Then owning or using this siddur is a violation of u-vechukoseihem'.
Finally got around to checking the blog out on Greg's recommendations. Nice work. (Especially Levinas - you seem to have chosen a good translator
I don't dispute the legitimate concerns over, um, creative and editorial translations. I do confess to disagreeing somewhat with the assertion that translating a work originally written in the vernacular of the day into the current primary language of American Jewry somehow represents a dumbing-down vis-a-vis the original intent.
I could, however, happily live the rest of my days without seeing the words "Thus" and "Perforce."
"Since when do women conduct the mitzvah of zimmun?"
i grew up in a charedi home, and I was taught at home to do zimun - also mayim achronim and similar things that many of my friends didn't do.
The environment in my parents home was pro-chumra, not pro-feminist.
Is there a particular reason why I shouldn't be part of the Artscroll market?
See:
"Let me ask you, do you wash your hands within 4 amos of your bed in the morning? Do you wear nifutz lishma tzitzis? How about cholov yisrael. Or Chadash!! (there's a biggie)."
cholov yisroel and chadash were a given in my home. negel vasser they were not so makpid on, though there was one in my room as a kid, and I don't wear tzitzis at all. I am 100% artscroll's clientele
It may be accurate to say that women's zimmun and kaddish is generally frowned upon.
It would be even more accurate to say "although it is often frowned upon, there is no halachic issue with doing so"."
There is a halachic preference for women doing zimun, there is a social preference not to.
For kaddish, adderabbi's line works.
"Rav Dovid Cohen has openly said that he discourages womens zimmun these days as in most cases it is motivated by feminism. In which case, he says, it would be assur de'oraisa because of bechukosayhem."
Copying the well known Gentile practice of saying zimun?
I've heard he says this, it's poppycock.
They would be far far better off encouraging zimun in girls schools, thus ending the problem. It *is* possible to choose on halachic grounds. That would leave them recommending zimun, and probably not recommending kaddish (but being polite to women who choose to say kaddish, should they encounter them).
"Rav Dovid Cohen has openly said that he discourages womens zimmun these days as in most cases it is motivated by feminism. In which case, he says, it would be assur de'oraisa because of bechukosayhem."
Forget that things motivated by feminism are not b'chukoseyhem because feminists are not specifically goyim, many of them are Jews. This is completely absurd. This is a gemara. What does it mean to say that following a gemara is b'chukoseyhem?
If women think they should engage in this practice just as men do - if they think that not being m'zamen would deprive them of an act that should be able to perform - that's not feminism, that's a straightforward understanding of the halacha.
Dude-
Perhaps feminism is the hidden impetus for women wanter their 'own' siddur in the first place!
Then owning or using this siddur is a violation of u-vechukoseihem'."
Exactly. As is the challah making craze. What do you think that is about if not a sop to the feminist impulse? How do you think that it became one of "women's most important mitzvos" to obligate themselves in a drabbonon that exists as a zecher to a mitzva that they can no longer fulfill?
Making challah yourself is a way to put more effort into honoring Shabbos and to make sure that it tastes homemade.
Anonymous:
"What does it mean to say that following a gemara is b'chukoseyhem?"
Precedent exists for a completely Jewish idea to become assur...think of Bamot. See Tshuvot Be'er Sheva at the end of #74. He says that we don't raise our hands in prayer anymore because it's become a gentile practice. c.f. the Gra in SA 178:7.
"cholov yisroel and chadash were a given in my home. negel vasser they were not so makpid on, though there was one in my room as a kid, and I don't wear tzitzis at all."
Really? That's fantastic!!! The point is, and this is incontrovertible, that you are in the huge minority. Artscroll's statement is 100% accurate.
For everyone involved here:
In general, the topic of 'b'chukoseihem' is complicated...I wouldn't go about barking at Rabbis about your opinions if you haven't done research (not to assume you haven't, just a piece of advice).
If you all want to rail on Artscroll, here's a good one: What the heck is the point of a book on the Ten Commandments? Since when are they more important than any of the other commandments? I don't see this as a book like the "5th Commandment" that concentrates on the halachos of a specific mitzva...I think it's clearly designating the importance of some over others.
Anyway, I'm not the biggest Artscroll fan in the world, but the arguments posited here are weak.
>Precedent exists for a completely Jewish idea to become assur...think of Bamot. See Tshuvot Be'er Sheva at the end of #74. He says that we don't raise our hands in prayer anymore because it's become a gentile practice. c.f. the Gra in SA 178:7.
1. Bamot: there's a pasuk that makes it assur(!)
2. Raising hands in prayer -- goyim do do that -- where are goyot being mezamen?
3. As far as mayim acharonim goes, there isn't even a clear heter for women not to do it.
All of the carping about Rav Dovid Cohens definition of Bechukotehem is foolish. He mentioned that there are two definitions of Bechukotehem mentioned in Tosafos and one of them refers simply to a value and cultural idiocy that stems from a non-Jewish value. That there are Jewish feminists is of no relevance, nor is it relevant that Zimmun has a legitimate source. If the behavior is motivated by feminism, then the behavios is assur. (Rav Moshe makes an almost identical point in his teshuva on feminists).
What he is saying is that in this day and age (for better or for worse) he would discourage these practices since religious feminism in general is an Issur DeOraisa. This is due to the fact that the entire impetus for feminist behavior stems from an anti-Torah source. He specifically stated this in regard to women making kiddush at home or splitting kiddush/challah duty with their husband.
I dont know if he applied Bechikotehem to the Zimmun, I actually think I heard him say that he discourages it these days because of the pervasive cultural problem of feminism.
I am sure that there are other poskim who disagree, but the ignoramuses here who wish to dispute Rav Cohen's definition of Bechukotehem are simply displaying their ignorance with hollow rebuttals which have no basis in halachic thought.
I fully admit to being an ignoramus, but I do have couple observations:
1. If he really thinks that is an issur deoraita then he should do more than just discourage it, he should say that it is assur!
2. I also note that you have changed your account of his opinion, saying that you don't know if applied bechukoteihem to it or not when before you said "In which case, he says, it would be assur de'oraisa because of bechukosayhem."
3. IMHO, there is such a wide spectrum of ideas that are considered "feminist" that it does not make sense to tar everyone who expresses a "feminist" opinion with the anti-Judaism label.
in all the talk of feminism, bechukotyhem and what that refers to, we seem to be assuming that something that origionates with non-Jews is automatically assur. I dont think this is a valid assumption.
consider Yitro's advice to Moshe on how to handle all of bnei yisrael's questions by setting up a tiered lgal system. Moshe took advice from a non-Jewish priest and it beecame part of th torah.
Something is not automatically bad if it comes from outside of Judaism. I mean, ashkenazi Jews led by rabenu Gershom learned monogamy from the Christians and we seem none the worse for it. Ideas can originate outside of Judaism (assuming that feminism did) and still be true to the ideas and parameters of torah.
Feminism is the belief that women and men are equals. This is in accord with basic Jewish belief, so who cares if non Jews believe it too? Women making a zimmun is in accord with established halacha.
If it took a nudge from outsidee to get women to start wanting to observe that halacha, then lete us hope for lots of more such nudges.
Sarah M:
See R. Baruch Halevi Epstein's commentary on the siddur called Baruch She'amar, the first piece in the sefer (on "Ma Tovu"). He says exactly what you said.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that b'chukoseihem arises from the source of the action. (Think shtreimels too).
Like the Dude and I said, it's complicated. If you want to research it, see the gemara in Avoda Zara 11a (I think) and Sanhedrin 52a (I think). Also see Tosafos and the Ran in Avoda Zara, and the Shulchan Aruch and pals in Yoreh Deah 178. Good luck, it 'aint easy.
Joe Socher:
IMHO, there is such a wide spectrum of ideas that are considered "feminist" that it does not make sense to tar everyone who expresses a "feminist" opinion with the anti-Judaism label.
Sarah M:
we seem to be assuming that something that origionates with non-Jews is automatically assur. I dont think this is a valid assumption.
Me:
Exactly. dat's what I've been saying
>He mentioned that there are two definitions of Bechukotehem mentioned in Tosafos and one of them refers simply to a value and cultural idiocy that stems from a non-Jewish value.
And who says we paskan like Tosafos? The Rama has a different definition. And anyway, "cultural idiocy" is purely subjective. Arguably the Bat Mitzvah is a "cultural idiocy" that reflects non-Jewish confirmation ceremonies, yet R. Moshe and others permitted it. Why? Because it has value.
the point, Dude, is that zimun is brought in the gemara, it's not some optional observance, it is acc. to many required. you can't say a mitzva is ossur because of b'chukoseyhem,
second, r cohen is a talmid chochum, but he can't always be taken seriously and this is one of those times - he has a weakness for Epater les Bourgeois. Before we get to the halacha, lots of things are motivated by feminism and widely done - no one is saying women can't have Jewish education, or take high paying jobs that are only available as a result of feminism to support their husbands in kollel, or anything of the sort.
Second, bchukoseyhem has to apply to specific rituals. You can't say anything inspired by X is bchukoseyhem, it relates to specific behaviors - this type of clothing, this action, etc. You can't say that if feminists do X, and we do Y for the same reason, it is bechukoseyhem. bchukoseyhem is behavioral,it can assur common practices, not practices unique to Jews that Jews do for the wrong reasons.
Third, it has to be a minhag shtus or a minhag that has clear origins in something wrong - and fourth, it is mutar if it is l'toeles. If it is a mitzva, it is always l'toeles.
There are other problems, but these are quite enough. It's absurd, and looking into the issue will make it more absurd, not less absurd.
"If the behavior is motivated by feminism, then the behavios is assur. (Rav Moshe makes an almost identical point in his teshuva on feminists).(Rav Moshe makes an almost identical point in his teshuva on feminists)."
No he doesn't. R Moshe says that if their behavior is motivated by rebelling against the torah - because they think the chachomim were not "Fair" to women and they want to correct that - it's ossur, but not because of b'chukoseyhem, because rebelling against chazal is ossur. R Moshe might sometimes have taken metahalacha into account, but he didn't stick things into halachic categories that they don't belong in, just b/c he thought he had a brilliant "chap" even though this "Chap" makes no sense.
To say that anyone who argues on R Cohen is "displaying their ignorance with hollow rebuttals which have no basis in halachic thought" would put many fine talmidei chachomim in the hollow, ignorant rebutter category. What you are actually saying is that if someone on a blog says the exact same thing that any posek you present this to will say, the blog commenter is ignorant, because they don't have the "Right" to disagree in sharp terms with R Cohen. WADR, That is NOT the way Judaism works. Anyone has the right to argue, as sharply as they wish. What is actually true is that ignorant baalei batim that R Cohen aim this at walk away thinking that "other poskim disagree" but R Cohen's is a valid shita. It's not, it's naarishkeit. It's appeal is convenience; if he says it's b'chukoseyhem, he doesn't have to pasken on each ritual as it comes up, and give a different reason to assur each time as everyone else does. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to go along with the charade.
Well done, Anon.
Your distinction between indirect inspiration and specific behavior is very well articulated; i was struggling to put my finger on exactly where my main objection to employing 'bechikoseihem' comes from. you hit the nail on the head.
Sarah M -
good points, which i think anon articulated in the requisite 'legalese'. I once heard RHS speak on this, and he asked rhetorically, "Are we not allowed to eat french fries because they were developed by the French? Of course we are; we don't eat them to be more like the French, we eat them because they taste yummy."
That said, I disagree that monogamy became a value for Ashkenazic Jews because they lived in a christian context. it's hard to go through Tanach and NOT realize that the Torah and Chazal saw monogamy as being better off than polygamy. I think that RGMH's institution has more to do with the improvement of women's economic status than the absorption of an external value. That's a post for a different time.
One last point, which should also be a separate post, pertains to the question of whether values such as feminism are 'imports' or not. If they are, then why should we value them? If they're really part of Torah, how come we never knew about it? Perhaps the answer lies in the process of exegesis: the 'outside' value informs the way we relate to and understand traditional texts, enabling us to redeem neglected dimensions of the Torah (see RYBS in the beginning if 'ra'ayonot al ha-tefillah' and in 'redemption, prayer, talmud torah'.
This: "If they're really part of Torah, how come we never knew about it?" might not be a valid question. Or maybe it's a good question with a decent answer.
The question of what the Torah requires and allows in an environment where women's dignity and abilities are broadly and blessedly taken for granted was very unlikely to have been raised in the prevalent environments of earlier days.
Wow! So much heat and so little light -- in ADDeRabbi's post and in must of the comment.
Why do I say that? Becasue I actually looked at the Siddur -- and found that the cabal at ArtScroll is neither as absolutist, nor is it seem to be playing into ignorance, as much as ADDeRabbi would have us believe. In fact, unlike in many other places, ArtScroll provided sources, and I’ve look at some of them (looks like our Rabbi didn’t bother to).
At the outset, many Modern Orthodox people (as opposed to real MO rabbanim like the Rav and Rav Schechter) think that just becasue a Rishon says something, they may choose to use that ruling as a valid guide in practice. Neither the Rav nor his reliable talmidim ever took that approach; certainly no other Orthodox group has. Tradition, rulings cited by the Shulchan Aruch and commentaries, as well as the acharonim, all play a role. So ADDeRabbis "sources" have no bearing in the face of both practice and subsequent rulings.
Now for some cases in point -- and I'll try to keep to the substantive issues rather than on most of his ridiculous, foaming-at-the-mouth commentary.
Zimmun:
ADDeRabbi: “The issue of women and zimmun is a travesty. They mention that it's 'not the accepted custom' for a woman to ever lead a zimmun. A full explanation of the issue is a separate post, but suffice it to say that the majority of Rishonim (Rosh, Ritva, R' Yonah) consider it an obligation…If it's optional, then the fact that people choose not to doesn't mean that the custom is not to! Most people chose not to. Some women choose to. Why has ArtScroll taken it upon themselves to eliminate an optional observance simply because most people opted out? Why is that choice better than the other choice?”
CHEZKYB: ArtScroll offers several sources for this paragraph (which includes the instruction that women eating with three men should respond to the men’s zimun. Two of the sources – Biur Halachah and Aruch HaShulchan (pretty mainstream and accepted) specifically address this issue. Biur Halachah, after noting that the Vilna Gaon considers it an obligation for women to make zimmun, states: ach ha'olam lo nahagu kein. The Aruch Hashulchan writes "velo shamanu mei'olam shenashim mezamnos l'atzman." ArtScroll, despite the Rabbi’s intent to misportray their instruction, did not use the term "frown upon." They wrote that “it is not the accepted custom,” which is exactly what these sources say.
Kaddish:
ADDeRabbi: The majority position is that women don't say kaddish yatom. There minority position is that they may. ArtScroll 'paskens' that it's 'generally frowned upon'.
CHEZKYB: ArtScroll doesn’t say that women saying Kaddish will be struck by lightning or are violating a prohibition, only that the practice is frowned upon. See the sources they cite. In the interest of honesty, even Rav YE Henkin, the authority most frequently misquoted as allowing women to say Kaddish attacks the practice on numerous grounds
My post -- Continued
In the interest of honesty, even Rav YE Henkin, the authority most frequently misquoted as allowing women to say Kaddish attacks the practice on numerous grounds and then writes: "If the daughter will come to daven in the ezras nashim and will imporove her ways in sanctifying Shabbos, in her observance of kashrus, purity and modesty -- because these are the important things -- and she would also like to recite Kaddish in front of the women while Kaddish is being recited in the men's sancutary, it is possible that there is no objection to this." Any honest person reading this essay would agree that Rav Henkin certainly "frowned upon" the practice. Rav Aharon Soloveichik only allows the practice so that women will not join Conservative or Reform temples; that’s a pretty weak embrace of the practice.
Even the well-known story the Rav told about once seeing a woman in Vilna saying Kaddish seems to support that it was remarkable and noteworthy, and that it was far from common or accepted.
ADDeRabbi’s riff on orphans and widows could have been cribbed from some of the Conservative movement’s “halachic decisions.” It has absolutely no bearing here – especially since this siddur, citing several sources, explains that listening to Kaddish and responding is itself a source of merit to the deceased.
Birchat Hagomel:
ADDeRabbi: In Temple times, will ArtScroll discoiurage women from offering a Korban Todah? In Israel, at least, women universally bentch gomel. Again, ArtScroll asserts that this isn't the prevalent custom. Why? Because American Orthodox women are ignorant of this Halakha? In my religion, that's called a minhag ta'us - a mistaken minhag. ArtScroll is canonizing stupidity.
CHEZKYB: No, it's because the Mishnah Berurah, the cited source, says "v'gam nashim minhag ha'olam sheiein mevarchim berachah zu" and he brings a reason in the name of the achronim, so he’s not a lone opinion on this.
You must allow me one ad hominem: So it is ArtScroll /American women who are ignorant, or a "rabbi" who can't find a Mishnah Berurah when he’s sent there?
Beyond that, despite ADDeRabbi’s ignoring the fact, the Siddur does mention that there are other positions.
General:
ADDeRabbi: So there can be no complexity, nothing left up to the reader's discretion, nothing left up to differing sensibilities, instincts, intuitions, or customs. ArtScroll seeks to treat adults as children.
CHEZKYB: ArtScroll is providing people with halachic direction consistent with classic sources. No one is forcing the Rabbi or anyone else to use this Siddur. The intellectual dishonesty lies not with ArtScroll, but with those like the Rabbi, who ignore the both traditional practice and documented source to set up staw men to attack.
ADDeRabbi:God help us all.
CHEZKYB: Amen.
"ADDeRabbi’s riff on orphans and widows could have been cribbed from some of the Conservative movement’s “halachic decisions.” It has absolutely no bearing here –"
Hic est "Orthodoxy is, in a sense, halakha in a straightjacket" in its finest form.
Some responses:
"Feminism is the belief that women and men are equals"
In some cases this is true. In many cases it more than that. Religious feminism is far different.
"bchukoseyhem is behavioral,it can assur common practices, not practices unique to Jews that Jews do for the wrong reasons. "
Incorrect. Rav Moshe says precisely the opposite. And apparently Rav Cohen agrees.
Anon -
I said that Rav Moshe makes an 'almost' identical point. His basic idea is that even if something is technically muttar it can be made assur by the motivation. The only difference (as you point out) is precisely which Issur it is. The problem is that many posters here ignorantly insist that there is no such category of issur.
Secondly my point was not that anyone who disagrees with Rav Cohen is an ignoramus. I myself admitted that there are poskim who disagree. What I was pointing out was that many people on this comment board who are disagreeing with him are simply displaying ignorance with their responses and complete dismissal of Rav Cohen's psak. I am sure that there are intelligent ones too. However, claiming that his psak is Naarishkeit in the same post as you display your ignorance on the workings of Bechukotehem is quite the irony.
Adderabbi:
"distinction between indirect inspiration and specific behavior is very well articulated"
How is that a relevant distinction? Would you say that Rav Moshes psak suffers from the same fault? Its a pretty basic halachic application. Actions based in feminism are Assur even if permitted otherwise. Not that hard...
Another point:
NO-ONE is making the claim that everything that non-JEws do is Assur. That argument is a red herring. Tosafos gives specific definitions of which actions, which to many poskim encompasses the feminism which demands changes in Judaism to accomodate modern cultural values.
Adderabbi:
"enabling us to redeem neglected dimensions of the Torah"
Do you really believe that something which has not been expressed in all of Chazal, Rishonim, etc... can legitimately be called part of Torah when we openly admit that it came from an outside source? Please.....
I don't really feel like looking it up, so please tell me: A siddur like this is an ideal place to discuss the history of "Shelo Asani Isha" and the like. Do they give variants like "Goya" (or "Nochriya") and "Shifcha" and "Moda" (in two places)? Do they mention the manuscripts that say "Sheasani Yisrael" or "Sheasani Isha v'lo Ish"?
Somehow I doubt it.
By justifying "Sheasani Kirtzono," Artscroll is itself bending to feminism, by the way.
ADDeRabbi-- I completely agree with you, that not allowing, for example, a girl who's lost her mother to say kaddish is extremely hurtful, and thus it is both assur and a horrible thing to do, to "frown upon it".
I was referring to zimmun only, but I wasn't clear, and you extended my point well.
Last spring I saw a friend very hurt by people ridiculing her decision to say kaddish-- your response meant quite a lot to her, so thank you.
Edited By Siteowner
My sister and I looked up the Tur source in shul yesterday (an old man could not believe he'd heard properly when we said we were learning the Tur, and promptly tested our knowledge of which Tanach character wrote which bracha of Birkat HaMazon! Go figure)
Anyways, R' Yhuda HaCohen makes sense in that I can't see what's wrong with a mixed zimmun. . . other than that the Gemara says you can't do it. And how can he go against the Gemara? Different girsa perhaps? Or else a looser understanding of how binding the Gemara is?
HoJo would be the beit yosef?
Where is the Mordechai source?
And what do we end up with besides a couple minority views that no one will ever hold by?
Have an easy and meaningful fast
rivka:
>And how can he go against the Gemara?
That group of Rishonim limits the Mishna to referring specifically to a combination of women and slaves. It requires some acrobatics in the sugya on 45b, granted, but it's still a position mentioned in Tur and HoJo.
>HoJo would be the beit yosef?
HoJo = House of Joseph = Beit Yoseph. It's a Gushism.
>Where is the Mordechai source?
It's quoted by the HoJo. I don't know where the original is, but I imagine it's at the beginning of the 7th chapter of Brachot. Or look in the newer editions of the Tur, which provide exact locations.
>And what do we end up with besides a couple minority views that no one will ever hold by?
An attitude of respect toward those who, for whatever reasons, adopt this position. Specifically with regard to the Conservative movement, there are positions (driving on Shabbat) which are unconscionable and result in mass desecration of Shabbat on the Biblical level, which I think need to be turned into bones of contention. It needs to be clear that this crosses a major line. At the same time, the issue of mixed zimmun has a basis in mainstream Halakhic Rishonim. Even though it's a minority position, it's one that has not been tossed out of the Beis Medrash and ought to be afforded that respect.
IMO, the issue presented by ArtScroll's approach is two fold. ArtScroll admits that its elucidation of the Talmud is no substitute for a traditional shiur or chavrusa. IOW, that is an admission that its Shas is a nice crutch and not a way of understanding the white between the lines in the Talmud. One can also question ArtScroll's hashkafic emphasis as well. Yet, MO failed in publishing a Siddur/Machzor that was user friendly and halachically accurate and in presenting access to Tanach, Mishnah, Talmud and Halacha for those either with little background or seeking to get back into learning. Despite their hashkafic basis, ArtScroll should be saluted for its accomplishments in this regard.
That being said, if and when you learn with the ArtScroll Shas, be aware that it is not the last word on any sugya, but rather a nice introduction. R Frand stated as much at the Siyum. I would go one step further and ask whether the footnotes explain the views of the majority of the Rishonim and help you on a halacha lmaaseh basis. If you can handle the Hebrew, I would suggest Halacha Brurah's Talmud which always go from Rishonim to Psak Halacha.
So what's the best response to "Dude" and Chezky Brown's objections?
CB seemed to have his head on more straight, with a number of good references, but a snarky attitude.
Dude just kept going back to Rav Moshe, who unfortuantely had a lot of trouble with assuming the motivations of people he had a personal dislike for. (religious feminists, gays and lesbians, non-orthodox jews, etc.)
Is it just a question of attitude? D & CB don't believe in respecting Jews who follow minority psaks (on this issue)? Do D & CB have a different understanding of how the halachic system works? What's the real point of contention?
the problem w dude's response is that the "precise" issur r moshe is talking about happens to matter if r moshe doesnt link things to bchkoseyhem, then one cant say that people who disagree with dovid cohen are ignorant about bchukoseyhem, hows that.
""bchukoseyhem is behavioral,it can assur common practices, not practices
unique to Jews that Jews do for the wrong reasons. "
Incorrect. Rav Moshe says precisely the opposite. And apparently Rav Cohen
agrees."
And you then contradict this in the very next breath:
"Anon -
I said that Rav Moshe makes an 'almost' identical point. His basic idea is that even if something is technically muttar it can be made assur by the motivation. The only difference (as you point out) is precisely which Issur it is. The problem is that many posters here ignorantly insist that there is
no such category of issur."
You've just contradicted yourself!! You write that R Moshe says "precisely lthe opposite" about b'chukoseyhem, and then admit that R Moshe doesn't talk about b'chukoseyhem at all!
R Moshe doesn't say the opposite about b'chukoseyhem. And my point about
feminism being "b'chukoseyhem" is that it MATTERS on what grounds someone
objects to a practice.
"Precisely what grounds" - I like that. One issur d'oreisa, or the other, what's the difference?
Poskim cannot spout any garbage they want; they can't for example say feminist inspired innovations
in tefilla are ossur because they are maacholos assuros. Even if a posek is
ultimately ruling based on metahalachic concerns, he can't just pick an issur at random out of the box, and say "that's the one!" because any old issur will do for his purposes. B'chukoseyhem is an issur w/ specific application and R Cohen is introducing a misunderstanding of the issur to the general public; if something like this is done purposefully, that itself is
a grave issur.
There is a big difference between what R Cohen and R Moshe say in practice;
R Moshe doesn't say a class of behavior is ossur, he says that a given individual can do a permissible behavior and it will be ossur, even while it is mutar for another, even within the same society. He's pointing to a larger concern, not to specific issurim; he's being straightforward about the metahalachic problem. That a) leaves him with a different bottom line than
R Cohen arrives at. Because of this difference, R Moshe has to
address each "feminist innovation" separately, because if a given practice is mutar, he would accept it for anyone whose motivation is acceptable. Whereas R Cohen can just say that anything and everything is ossur in principle, for everyone, regardless of motivation. B) R
Moshe is not, either, damning all "femnists" or anyone ever inspired by
feminist activism in its many and varied forms. He is specifically
condemning the mindset that says that chazal established halacha from the mindset of the partiarchy oppressing women. This means that if the gemara says women should be mzamen, and the preference in rishonim is that they should,overturning the minhag is complaining about the minhag, not chazal, and therefore acceptable. Same goes for any other minhag not based on gemara, but that c
developed as a minhag later.
C) R Cohen is in the inane position of osuring feminist practices even when they don't touch on religion, eg a woman fighting for the vote, equal pay for equal work, maternity leave, day care, etc etc - if it's bchukoseyhem, it's bchukoseyhem across the board.
By contrast, R Moshe is not assering "Feminist" practices even within Judaism, so long as the women engaging in them are not second-guessing chazal, so that eg formal women's education that is motivated by the idea that chazal were wrong to discourage teaching women is a problem for R Moshe, while the mindset that simply says that new concerns have arisen that chazal didnt have to deal with that make women's education necessary today is OK for R Moshe.
Chezky's made some excellent points and given us all a lot to think about. I'll try to ignore the 'snarkiness' as Alan calls it.
> I've look at some of them (looks like our Rabbi didn't bother to).
Mea Culpa. I was looking at a friend's copy and didn't get a chance to look up footnotes. I had to rely on my own knowledge of the Sugyot, my own prior research, and discussions that I've had with my Rebbeim and colleagues.
>At the outset, many Modern Orthodox people (as opposed to real MO rabbanim like the Rav and Rav Schechter) think that just becasue a Rishon says something, they may choose to use that ruling as a valid guide in practice. Neither the Rav nor his reliable talmidim ever took that approach. Certainly no other Orthodox group has.
Umm, no. Not correct. RHS, who you list as an example, is perhaps the most iconoclastic posek in America today. R' Moshe was a complete iconoclast when it came to psak, as was the GRA (who obligates women in Zimmun), who is a major commentary of the Shulchan Arukh. Furthermore, where do you see me advocating that one can pick the position of any Rishon one wishes? Did you find that on my blog? I mentioned some rejected positions in the Rishonim not to advocate practice but to highlight certain issues, le-saber es ha-ozen. More below.
Zimmun:
>includes the instruction that women eating with three men should respond to the men's zimun
Revolutionary! No, wait, an explicit Gemara in Erchin. My bad.
>Two of the sources- Biur Halachah and Aruch HaShulchan (pretty mainstream and accepted) specifically address this issue. Biur Halachah, after noting that the Vilna Gaon considers it an obligation for women to make zimmun, states: ach ha'olam lo nahagu kein.
So why doesnt the ArtScroll even mention the opinion of the GRA? The Biur Halakha is simply stating that the minhag isnt in accordance with the GRA, because women don't make a zimmun. To construe that as a discouragement of women making Zimmun is a very poor reading. The Shulchan Arukh pakens it to be optional. The Gra - obligatory. The BH isn't coming in with a third opinion, rather stating that the minhag is not like the GRA. For the ArtScroll to ignore the Shulchan Arukh, who leaves the option open, requires some serious explanation.
>The Aruch Hashulchan writes "velo shamanu mei'olam shenashim mezamnos l'atzman." ArtScroll, despite the Rabbi's intent to misportray their instruction, did not use the term "frown upon."
You're right. 'Frown upon' is the language used for Kaddish. If I misquoted regarding Zimmun, I'll go back and correct it.
>They wrote that 'it is not the accepted custom', which is exactly what these sources say.
cot'd.
As I just wrote, I don't believe that to be what the Biur Halacha means. Had ArtScroll written 'It's not done in most Orthodox circles' - that's a statement of fact, and fair game. Saying it's 'not the accepted custom' is a normative statement. It implies that the 'accepted custom' is not to say it. That's not true. The vast majority of women choose not to say it, even though the choice is given. Finally, I'm not saying that ArtScroll is wrong to use the Biur Halakha or the Arukh HaShulchan. But here the purpose of quoting them is to avoid the 'issues' that the Shulchan Arukh raises by saying that it's optional. Why couldn't they quote the SA? Or the GRA? Or R' Shlomo Zalman, who reportedly advocated women's zimmun? Are they not mainstream? Or is ArtScroll selective about which 'mainstream' sources it quotes.
>Kaddish:
ArtScroll doesn't say that women saying Kaddish will be struck by lightning or are violating a prohibition, only that the practice is frowned upon.
Perhaps I'm being less than objective because of personal experience. I know women who were mistreated because they recited the Mourner's Kaddish. When it comes to an issur de-oraysa like tormenting a widow or orphan, ArtScroll can be more judicious than to use a term like 'frown upon'. It seems to grant license for doing just that.
>In the interest of honesty, even Rav YE Henkin, the authority most frequently misquoted as allowing women to say Kaddish attacks the practice on numerous grounds
His grandson has a responsum where he deals with a number of those issues, most of which relate to a situation where the woman would be the only one saying Kaddish, and where the custom is that no more than one says Kaddish simultaneously, which is not the case is most of our shuls. I'd recommend the summary of positions in R' Tukachinsky's 'Gesher Ha-Chayim'. R' Tukachinsky is no great advocate of women saying Kaddish either, but his survey is somewhat broader. I've commented here and elsewhere with an alternative that ArtScroll can use in place of 'frown upon', which would instruct it's reader in a more sensitive way.
>Rav Aharon Soloveichik only allows the practice so that women will not join Conservative or Reform temples; that's a pretty weak embrace of the practice.
Are you saying that ArtScroll doesn't care if women join R temples or C synagogues (I'll excuse you for not knowing that there are no Conservative temples).
>Even the well-known story the Rav told about once seeing a woman in Vilna saying Kaddish seems to support that it was remarkable and noteworthy, and that it was far from common or accepted.
And the story about the Bostoner Rebbe?
>ADDeRabbi's riff on orphans and widows could have been cribbed from some of the Conservative movement's 'halachic decisions.'
You seem to have completely missed the point. I’m not advocating for women saying Kaddish as a kiyum of being nice to orphans. It goes back to the choice of terms, in which ArtScroll, in my opinion, displayed gross insensitivity.
cotd
It goes back to the choice of terms, in which ArtScroll, imo, displayed gross insensitivity. This has nothing to do with the laws of Kaddish and everything to do with how to be a sensitive human being.
I understand where you're trying to go with the pot-shot against Conservative Halakha. I'm not enamored with their process myself. Nevertheless, A) Guilt by association just happens to be a poor argument in general, and B) If you think there's a problem with self-consciously taking human factors into the halakhic process, then I suggest that you never pasken a shaila in your entire life, and that you never read a responsum of the Sridei Aish, lest you accuse him of Conservatism.
>It has absolutely no bearing here - especially since this siddur, citing several sources, explains that listening to Kaddish and responding is itself a source of merit to the deceased.
Two issues with this senence:
1) If listening is just as good, why do men take saying Kaddish so seriously.
2) Do you really think that Kaddish Yasom is all about being a source of merit to the deceased? Is that why people say Kaddish? I don't know, thank God. But I suspect that there's a lot more motivation for mourner's to say Kaddish than as a merit to the deceased. Just a hunch.
>Birchat Hagomel:
No, it's because the Mishnah Berurah, the cited source, says "v'gam nashim minhag ha'olam sheiein mevarchim berachah zu" and he brings a reason in the name of the achronim, so he's not a lone opinion on this.
It's not 'minhag Ha-olam' today, not by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps it was when the MB was writing, but it isn't today. Why would ArtScroll present it as the dominant minhag? When trying to address why there's a disparity between the custom in Israel and the US, you will have to come to sociological factors. I can't fault ArtScroll for following the MB, and I'm glad they mention other opinions (like I said earlier, I didn't get to go through the footnotes), but the MB here is not the majority position. Not even close. I know that in certain circles it's all the rage to grant the MB canonical status like the SA, but it's not. If you doubt it, check up how many times R' Moshe quotes the Mishna Brurah. Moreover, here the MB says that the reason for women not to say it is because it's not 'orach ar'ah' for a woman to say it in front of 10 men. In Israel, the Minhag is for the woman to say it from behind the Mechitza. MB also mentions positions that it can be in front of 8 women (not including the woman reciting) and a man. R' Ovadiah Yosef, who says that women are obligated, has several responsa where he deals with this issue, with the expected impressive list of Rishonim and Acharonim who agree with him. The amazing thing here is the lack of opinions which excuse women from 'Ha-Gomel'. In most discussions, it's a foregone conclusion that they're obligated, the question is whether and how to say it in front of men.
>General:
ArtScroll is providing people with halachic direction consistent with classic sources. No one is forcing the Rabbi or anyone else to use this Siddur.
This is really the heart of the issue: ArtScroll can pick its way through the poskim, presenting it and spinning it however they wish, and retain the 'classic' label. Each part may have basis in the 'classic sources', but the whole is not a true rendition of all that's classic. It's the disingenuousness involved in this process that I find disturbing.
You'll say, then, that I'm not forced to use the siddur. To which I respond by saying that nobody's forcing you to read my blog. Yet, it's out there, you take issue, and you make your disagreement known. Well, me too.
I think I can go a step further in suggesting that ArtScroll isn't putting it out there because it's the official Siddur of their minhag, if you like it, fine, if you don't, also fine. They market very strongly. They don't have serious competition. They are a business, and their goal is to get into every shul in the English-speaking world, MO or not. They are the Microsoft of Jewish publishing. If I had issues with Chabad's Tehillas Hashem, I'm more than likely to keep them to myself. We all know that ArtScroll is different.
"Secondly my point was not that anyone who disagrees with Rav Cohen is an
ignoramus. I myself admitted that there are poskim who disagree. What I was pointing out was that many people on this comment board who are disagreeing with him are simply displaying ignorance with their responses and complete dismissal of Rav Cohen's psak."
I was commenting on the way you leave an "out" for poskim, but assume commenters disagree out of ignorance.
This is a classic argument from authority - if you're a posek you can disagree, otherwise shut up. R Cohen has made a very rudimentary mistake. If you don't have the knowledge to correct R Cohen, don't assume everyone else is ignorant because you are.
" I am sure that there are intelligent ones too. However, claiming that his
psak is Naarishkeit in the same post as you display your ignorance on the
workings of Bechukotehem is quite the irony."
Huh? You've just admitted that R Moshe doesn't base the issur on b'chukoseyhem; and you simply never addressed what I wrote in criticism of R Cohen's statement about bchukoseyhem. I defined the
issur, and gave several reasons that it can't apply, particularly to a
mitzva. You responded to say that R Moshe disagrees, when R Moshe doesn't
connect feminist practices to b'chukoseyhem at all, and you simply reassert that I am wrong without addressing the specifics.
I am not saying that intent can't matter; in fact, I said that if something is done l'toeles, it's not b'chukoseyhem (that's why zimun can't be b'chukoseyhem, as mitzvos - not optional practices - are always l'toeles.)
What I said is that what the issur is chal on is practices, not ideas. Even if one thinks feminism is shtus, "feminism" is not a *minhag* shtus. A practice based on feminism can be a minhag shtus, but only the practice itself is ossur. If feminists wear purples shoes, then wearing purple shoes can be ossur. But if feminists, inspired by the "shtus" of feminism, wear purple shoes, and Jewish women are inspired by the very same idea to turn cartwheels in the street, the cartwheels are not bchukoseyhem,, b'chukoeseyhem doesnt prevent anyone from starting new minhagim based on shtus, only from borrowing actual minhagim from others.
"How is that a relevant distinction? Would you say that Rav Moshes psak
suffers from the same fault? Its a pretty basic halachic application.
Actions based in feminism are Assur even if permitted otherwise. Not that
hard..."
R Moshe is not talking about b'chukoseyhem, what's with you - you admitted this yourself! B'chukoseyhem is a specific issur, with specific meaning. R D Cohen can't just change what the issur involves because it's convenient for him to do so to.
"(Furthermore, R moshe says OPTIONAL practices that are motivated by
rebellion, he doesn't point to mitzvas like zimun.)
"NO-ONE is making the claim that everything that non-JEws do is Assur. That argument is a red he
"NO-ONE is making the claim that everything that non-JEws do is Assur. That argument is a red herring. Tosafos gives specific definitions of which actions, which to many poskim encompasses the feminism which demands changes in Judaism to accomodate modern cultural values."
1)you've just dismissed the shitas hagra as a red herring
2) who are these "many poskim"
You are handwaving again about b'chukoseyhem. There are no "many poskim" who agree with R Cohen; you are just back to saying that if anyone has a problem with any "Feminist" practice they agree with R Cohen's absurd statement that these practices are bchukoseyhem.
Sorry about the formatting of these comments, I've been having trouble with haloscan.
Anon:
you are incorrect in numerous ways.
First of all you are expanding Rav Cohens psak far more than he intended. He specifically said that for a husband and wife to either split kiddush and challah duties or for the wife to always make kiddush out of feminist concerns is an issur of Bechukosehem. There is a wide gap between this type of behavior which he considers to be bechukosehem due to its 'we know better than those rabbis did' attitude. He specifically referred (in the talk I heard)to a feminist journal which described opposition to chazals attitude by writing that 'they were all men' thus impugning their proper place as the baalei mesorah. I dont know (and neither do you) whether he applies Bechukosehem to womens vote since your attempt to conflate ALL feminism as equal and identical in motivation and practice is ludicrous. I DO know that he applied it to religious feminism. Perhaps the 'Bechukosehem' lies in the attitude which believes that actions are only valuable if theyve been assigned to men. Or perhaps its the attitude that if men made the law its faulty. Your red herring that all feminism shares an identical view is ludicrous and a straw man.
"R Cohen is introducing a misunderstanding of the issur to the general public"
Really? Do you have any evidence of that? He is generally known as quite the Talmud chacham. I would expect some sources for such a brash contention...
"if you're a posek you can disagree, otherwise shut up"
No, if you are a posek I assume that you have some basis to your ad hoc pronouncements. If you are not, then the dismissive attitude toward his psak completely unsupported by sources is a sign of attitude as well as ignorance. Another difference is that other poskim simply disagree, they dont consider his approach ridiculous as you do. My entire point in my original post was simply to note that there are substantial poskim who discourage womens zimmun, and that perhaps that is why Artscroll leaned in that direction. Your response was to jump all over Rav Cohen and basically call him loony. Not a sign of intelligence.
"b'chukoeseyhem doesnt prevent anyone from starting new minhagim based on shtus, only from borrowing actual minhagim from others. "
This is a wonderfully baseless pronouncement. Obviously a posek of note disagrees with you. Do YOU have any source to back up your argument given that you are brash enought to assert that he is compltely off-base and you are right?
"you've just dismissed the shitas hagra as a red herring"
Poppycock! Does the GRA say that its assur to drink water since goyim do it? Does he say that its assur to use a spoon since goyim do? To blow your nose? To take a bath? You really display your ignorance with panache!
To clarify one point which I left unclear. Rav Cohen said that he discourages womens zimmun. He did not include it in bechukosehem. He specifically used that Issur to refer to the practices I no
noted above
Dude, you're the one who wrote that he assers all practices based on feminism as due to bchukoseyhem. You even extended this to zimun, before retracting! I *know* that he doesn't extend it to the vote, my point is that you *can't* point to the issur of bchukoseyhem to rule out practices that are only within Judaism, and not other feminist practices, that is not the way the issur is defined! Only minhagei shtus that are borrowed can be bchukoseyhem. If people invent Jewish minhagim based on feminist ideas, it can't be bchukoseyhem. Bchukoseyhem doesnt apply to ideas, it applies to specific practices that are borrowed from others.
R Cohen is well known as quite the talmid chochom, but as I've already said, he's well known for making such wild statements pour epater les bourgeois. I am not saying he's a loony; I'm saying he's not got the world's most serious temperament.
"then the dismissive attitude toward his psak completely unsupported by sources is a sign of attitude as well as ignorance. Another difference is that other poskim simply disagree, they dont consider his approach ridiculous as you do."
everything I say is supported, and you didn't (and aren't) arguing on the merits.
How do you KNOW that they don't consider his psak his ridiculous. I assure you that they do. People don't always laugh in print, that's what blogs are for.
"My entire point in my original post was simply to note that there are substantial poskim who discourage womens zimmun, and that perhaps that is why Artscroll leaned in that direction. Your response was to jump all over Rav Cohen and basically call him loony. Not a sign of intelligence."
Um, it's not a sign of intelligence on your part to think that you can discourage zimun, which is a mitzva, as b'chukoseyhem, when the plain sense of the gemara is that its required for women. So you aren't in a position to talk about intelligence here, sorry.
There actually *aren't* substantial poskim who discourage zimmun. There are poskim who discourage all kinds of other "Feminist" practices; and there is cultural aversion to taking on zimun because it's associated with such. This is a foolish reaction, btw, it's far better to implement appropriate "Feminist" changes, when they conform with halacha. One may as well tell people not to daven, and rely on the MA limud zchus, because that too was the minhag, and change is feminist. The case for zimun is not as strong as for tefila, but it's not that much weaker either.
Dude, why don't you open a SA, and stop calling others ignorant. Yes, if it's not l'toeles, that is the shitas hagra.
I recommend that you bone up on this topic; you seem a little ignorant about it. I am saying devorim pshutim.
"This is a wonderfully baseless pronouncement. Obviously a posek of note disagrees with you. "
It is not baseless because a posek disagrees with me. You are arguing from authority, k'darkecha bakodesh.
"Poppycock! Does the GRA say that its assur to drink water since goyim do it? Does he say that its assur to use a spoon since goyim do? To blow your nose? To take a bath? You really display your ignorance with panache!"
All of these behaviors have clear toeles, and we've said that something isn't bchukoseyhem f it's l'toeles - that is the basic fact you overlooked when you decided to extend the idea to zimmun. Actually none of these practices are unique to goyim, or ever were, so bchukoseyhem doesn't apply even if there were no toeles.
After my wife gave birth, I asked my rabbi if I could bentsch gomel on her behalf. His response: "what did YOU do?"
This rabbi is merely the Av Beit Din of the Va`ad ha-Rabbonim of Massachusetts. How dare he posken against Rav Scroll?
Anon-
You seem to have an inherent inability to address anything but straw men. If you really wish to respond to my points, go back and read my first few posts.
Additionally you seem also unable to bring up a single source for your absolutist pronouncements. You simply repeat them once more without supportive evidence.
There is no point in discussing this if you refuse to support your declarations and bloviations with nothing more than repetition.
Is that you dude? Is this your way of saying that you have no way of answering the specifics on the merits, so you're resorting to the time-honored method of insults? If I say, this is the shitas hagra, and you respond to say, no it isn't, I have given you a source, that you probably haven't seen, since you don't respond to explain how I've misinterpreted, you dodge with insults. When I tell you to get with the program and check up on this, and you'll see that bchukoseyhem applies to common practices, you dont refute, you insult.
Two ways you can get something to be bchukoseyhem : either a *practice* that is done for a"Z or a minhag shtus. Obviously if you create a new practice l'shem a"Z, thats still a problem. But a new minhag shtus based loosely on the same shtus-idea is not bchukoseyhem, its a silly practice Jews created. This is how it is. So actually R Dovid Cohen can potentially asser some of the secular practices you say he wouldnt dream of assering, but he can't asser new specifically Jewish feminist practices that are in no way based on goyish practices.
I suggest you bone up on bchukoseyhem (if not for this thread for the future).
The sreidei eysh has a tshuva on bas mitzva in which he lays out all the shitas very clearly, it's a good primer I recommend it to you.
The tshuvas maharik #88 (shorter than the above, and will give you some of the concepts you are obviously missing).
You will find that everything I wrote here is poshut and sustantiated.
A Primer on Jewish Feminism:
I think many people (not all) writing here about what feminism is have no idea what they are talking about. It's the big bad bogeyman (bogeywomen?) under the bed, but no one's looked under the bed to see what it looks like, cause it's too scary. Is it arguing that women need to be more like men? Seperate roles but equal? That ritual and power cannot be separated? Is it external to Judaism? Internal, intrinsic?
Here are a few basics to get you started.
Judith Plaskow: a reform/reconstructionist writer, argued that Rabbinic Judiasm was inherently sexist and needed drastic revision, from the idea of a legal system (laws are male, duh) to the idea of a transcendent, authority-figure of God (also very male). She is a radical view, and unfortunately not as well versed in Jewish thought as she could be. Not surprised that she spooked R. Moshe. IMHO, worth reading for her qustions more than for her answers.
Judith Hauptmen: Egalitarianism is an obvious value of the rabbis. Rabbinic Judaism is full of innovations to protect women, such as giving a ketuba, and a wife keeping her dowry, and the rabbis (except rambam) prohibit wife beating half- a millenia before anyone else. (AH how low our standards are) Therefore, feminism, the view that women and men should be treated equally, is an intrinsically Jewish value, like kavod habriot and chesed. Rabbis need to return to their roots and factor this into their psak.
Blu Greenbreg: The founder of JOFA (www.JOFA.org), Greenberg more than anyon else has championed the idea that feminism is not incompatible with the halachic system. While women's tefilla groups began in the 70's, this school of feminism really took off after R. Moshe's death, arguing that rabbis should not prohibit what is mutar, simply because it allots women a visible role outside the kitchen. Famous for controversially saying "when there's a rabbinic will, there's a halachik way" Greenberg argued that the halachik system was more influenced by individual values and motivations and less by textual requirement than many liked to think. Bottom line: feminism and Halachik Judaism are not contradictory or mutually exclusive, except when rabbis scared of change create issues.
Basically, I'm trying to say that not all of feminism can be lumped into on thing or another. Some of feminism (like the return to Ashera worship extremist stuff) is undeniably bechukoteyhem, not to mention avoda zarah, but this is not the bulk of it. Lik democracy, feminism is something the world has only learned recently, but it's rather silly to label somthing before you know what it is.
Recommended Reading list:
Expanding the Palace of TOrah: Dr. Tamar Ross
Standing Again At Sinai: Judith Plaskow
ReReading the Rabbis: Judith Hauptman
On Being a Jewish Woman: Blu Greenberg
About Feminism being external to Judasim, try to find a copy of "My Uncl the Netziv" that hasn't been mutilated, oops I mean censored, by Artscroll. Th Netziv's wife had some awesome feminist rants, and she lived long before the feminist movement, so she did it all without being corrupted by them goyim.
"and the rabbis (except rambam) prohibit wife beating half"
he doesn't - he permits *beis din* to beat the wife, but beis din can beat husbands too. As in makin oso ad she'omer rotze ani, something I'm sure most feminists would like to see returned.
Sarah M-
to be fair, 'my uncle, the netziv' was targum/feldheim, not artscroll.
See here for a full treatment of the translation of that book. Good thing blogs weren't around then:
http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/...%5FSeeman%
2Epdf
Anon-
You are a fool.
Allow me to clarify the timeline of this post.
The initial post was stating that it was silly of Artscroll to discourage womens zimmun.
I wrote that Rav Dovid Cohen discourages it as well, and that perhaps that is why Artscroll chose to take that policy (choosing a shev v'al taaseh since there are poskim who discourage it).
I also noted that he (RDC) holds that certain practices which are motivated by feminism can be assur due to bechukosehem.
Now, you responded by claiming that RDC is mistaken and that his shittah is foolish (re Bechukosehem).
You then went 3-4 posts refusing to back your claim up. I was not taking his position, I agreed that there were poskim who disagree, I was simply stating that if you wish to reflexively gainsay and ridicule the psak of a posek gadol you need some sources.
You then responded with repetition, and insults, but no sources.
My point was not an appeal to authority, but an appeal to reason. If you wish to entirely discard his shittah, then back it up. You still havent. You have been staggering about with pronouncements and chest puffing, but nothing that would cause me to doubt that RDC has a valid shittah in Bechukosehem.
At the very least, you and he disagree, and from what I heard he is a Bar Hachi to have a shittah. And that was my entire point. One you have never (and cannot refute).
Now please, dont waste our time...
thanks for the clarificatin and summary, Dude.
Please refrain from ad hominems, please.
"I wrote that Rav Dovid Cohen discourages it as well, and that perhaps that is why Artscroll chose to take that policy (choosing a shev v'al taaseh since there are poskim who discourage it)."
No you didn't. You wrote that he says it's bchukoseyhem, repeated that, and later retracted and said that *you* say it's bchukoseyhem, and he says other things are bchukoseyhem.
"I was simply stating that if you wish to reflexively gainsay and ridicule the psak of a posek gadol you need some sources.
You then responded with repetition, and insults, but no sources."
See, first, I have given you sources. But second, no one in all of Jewish history has proposed that if Jews are inspired by X shtus to start new minhagim, it's bchukoseyhem, so there' no tshuva explicitly rejecting R Cohen's idea. This is not because it's valid; it's because it's stupid. So the only thing one can do is point you to sources which explain on what the issur is chal, which I've done. It is not chal on the sort of thing R Cohen says its chal on, i.e. practices invented by jews for jews.
"My point was not an appeal to authority, but an appeal to reason. If you wish to entirely discard his shittah, then back it up. You still havent. You have been staggering about with pronouncements and chest puffing, but nothing that would cause me to doubt that RDC has a valid shittah in Bechukosehem."
I take it you have NOT looked up the sources I gave, or you'd see that the argument R Cohen makes falls apart.
This isnt chest puffing. I can summarize for you what bchukoseyhem is, or I can point you to sources that do the same. I've done both.
You quite clearly dont know the first thing about the topic, or you would realize how foolish saying there are no sources to back this up is, as everyone agrees on what the shitas in bchukoseyhem is, and R Cohen's shita is not included.
In addition, I remind you that you dismissed the shitas hagra, also without looking it up
So it's quite clear that what you do, is accuse other people of not having sources to back up their statements, when the problem w/ ignorance is really that you dont know what you are talking aout.
See, if you DID know what you were talking about, you couldn't have proposed on your own, that zimun might be included in bchukoseyhem, as it would have occured to you that even R Cohen can't possibly be saying that a mitzva is bchukoseyhem. So your ignornace on this topic is pretty well established, yet the only thing you can think of to counter what is being said is to attack others for being ignorant...rather than, say, actually looking at the tshuvas I sent you to, both of which are good primers on bchukoseyhem, that back up my summary.
Hi all,
Reading the majority of this made me think.
I am going to be honest with you; I am really just starting out on my journey with Judaism. My reading rate is abysmal and I am having real problems with issues regarding the roles of men and women.
I have to be honest that as soon as I saw this siddur, it made me jump for joy - at last there is someone who can understand where I am coming from and who understands that I need something like this for me to stay within Orthodoxy.
I do find it disturbing that there is so much baseless hatred between the MO's and the Rabbis and the Chareidi and the other Orthodox people here. Come on guys, calm down, this is just discussion - let's not get carried away.
Oh, BTW, just in case anyone was wondering, I am going to buy it. I am seeing my daughter's godmother (my best mate) in Israel and I really don't want to take 3 volumes. (Separate Tehillim, normal Siddur and Aneni:special prayers for special occasions)Just in case anything happens to them, and also it just has to be better to travel with. Take a minute to think about it.
Enjoy, Mrs. Doueck. Just make sure that the three of you aren't planning on making a 'mezuman'.
I hope that, as you continue to learn, you recognize that what goes on here is not 'baseless hatred', and that nobody is getting 'carried away'.
Much success as you find your way in Yahadut.
Dear Rabbi,
Having been incredibly tactless as a teenager, I have now become the total opposite and am now acutely aware of what is correct and what is definitely NOT. So I am terribly sorry if I offended you. It was not my intention to do so.
However, as to the early part of your message I am a little confused.
What did you mean by 3 of me? There's only one of me, as far as I know. If you are referring to my daughter, her Godmother and myself I feel this could be a little difficult as my daughter is just 2 and I think she would find reading a single line of English an incredible challenge, let alone Ivrit (regardless of how much I feel she may be a little mini Einstein. 
).
I'm also a little unsure of what a mezuman is. Could you help clarify for me, please? Don't be harsh about this point, I have had about as much Jewish education as probably a Third Grader has had. It has taken me a long time to get where I am today to know as much as I do and would truly appreciate if you don't hold that against me.
I hope all is well and that you had a good Shabbos.
i was referring to your daughter. looks like you've still got about 10 years.
'Mezuman' or 'Zimmun' refers to the procedure by which, when 3 or more men (or women) have eaten a meal together, on of them 'invites' the others to say 'birkat hamazon' (the grace after meals), transforming their individual prayers into a single, communal act of prayer.
The mainstream position in Halakha is that men have the obligation to perform this, whereas women have the option.
part of my critique of the siddur was that it discourages women from doing this, even though it's near-universally regarded as at least a viable option.
have a great time in israel!
Adderabbi, "My Uncle the Netziv" was Targum/Artscroll. I think Targum switched to Feldheim after that.
In any event, you won't get any feminism in the English version- and even that wasn't good enough to keep it from being banned. You'll have to read the Hebrew original, "Mekor Barukh."
or the TuM Journal article by Don Seeman.
Very nice post.
However, in comparing how you went about tackling the first two issues (Zimun and Kaddish), you took 2 very different approaches. Regarding zimun, you seem to have taken an halachic approach. The halacha is clearly as you state and artscroll should not be a posek for a woman that doesn't know the halachos.
However, for the second topic, you took a hashkafic approach. You say that it is essentially tormeting to widows/orphans to say the Kaddish Yasom. However, there is no halachic basis for this statement, only a Remez B'alma to pesukim. I would recommend you read ""The Recital of Kaddish by Women" in RJJ's Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society (XXXI, Spring 1996) which b'sach hakol lambasts women saying kaddish. The main heter was one of chinuch, that we wanted women to come to shul. Nowadays, rabonnim argue that this no longer applies.
I don't think Artscroll should be making halachic or hashkafic decisions for anyone, however, I would say halachically they are dead on in regards to women and Kaddish.
AlanLaz - it's a shame that the 100+ comments originally appended to this post are gone. This was a topic discussed.
Basically, my criticism of ArtScroll in this matter is not in their psak halakha. Whereas there are differences of opinion, the mainstream halakhic psak is that women do not recite kaddish yatom.
My issue was w/ artscroll's statement that such a practice is 'frowned upon'. It's one thing to pasken tht they shouldn't say it, and entirely another to suggest what one's attitude should be toward someone who is recently bereft. Thus, in this instance i believe it to be a 'hashkafic' issue more than a halakhic one, though the issurim of tormenting a widow or orphan (again, not by prohibiting them from saying kaddish, but by 'frowning upon' them) are mitzvot de-orayta (unlike kaddish).
"Rav Dovid Cohen has openly said that he discourages womens zimmun these days as in most cases it is motivated by feminism. In which case, he says, it would be assur de'oraisa because of bechukosayhem."
Why don't their osser male sexism as well?
How many posters would fullfil the Mitzvas Aseh of Tefilah properly today without a Siddur or Machzor telling them that HaMelech HaKaosh is indispensible from RH through YK?!How many people would even attempt to learn Talmud without the ArtScroll Shas? The notion that a Siddur or Machzor should include every minority opinion and Daas Yachid to satisfy the PC views of feminists as opposed to providing a halachically correct and basic hashkafa of Tefilah in addition to two wonderful Machzorim based on the Torah of RYBS is IMO ludicrous. One wonders why the MO world failed to produce basic texts that were halachically sound and included basic hashkafic fundamentals including those of RYBS. One can only guess that the MO world was too busy devoting time to the endless debate over the legacy of RYBS as opposed to affording its members something of enduring value. As someone who is not a fan of ArtScroll's Charedi historical and hashkafic POV, one cannot criticize them for publishing maistream works such as a Siddur, Machzor, Chumash, Mishnah and Talmud and even a Siddur of Techinos, which cannot be dismissed as retrogade simply because it opts to include practices that were never mainstream Halachic practices and part of the Mesorah.
As a girl, I was raised to say Modah Ani, and not Modeh. Ditto to change other tefillot (e.g., harei ani muchan u-mezuman) to feminine. Imagine my surprise to discover Modeh on page 1 of the women's siddur. I had thought that genderizing the Hebrew would be the main point of a women's siddur; I was wrong. One rabbi whom I asked agreed with me in preferring Modah for females. Another preferred the offical, traditional wording for both genders.
Commenting by HaloScan
