DOCSLIB.ORG

Rabbi Adam Mintz: Rabbi Henkin and the First Heter Agunot in America

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rabbi Adam Mintz: Rabbi Henkin and the First Heter Agunot in America Rabbi Adam Mintz: Rabbi Henkin and The First Heter Agunot in America Rabbi Henkin and The First Heter Agunot in America By Adam Mintz The tragedy of the agunah, the woman who is unable to receive a get from her husband, has plagued the Jewish people since time immemorial. Rabbis and scholars throughout the centuries have contended with this issue in an attempt to free agunot to remarry. In the United States this issue was first formally addressed following World War I. European Jews soldiers, fighting on both sides of the war, were among those killed in battle. As soldiers are generally young, they often left childless widows who required a halitzah from the dead husband’s brother in order to remarry. A number of these brothers had immigrated to the United States where visas were difficult to acquire. Therefore, the Agudath HaRabbanim sent a letter to its membership in 1922 alerting them to this situation and offering assistance in helping these women acquire temporary visas to the United States thereby allowing these women to obtain a halitzah and to remarry. With the growth of the American Jewish community in the early part of the twentieth century, Jews began to assimilate and the predicament of the Jewish wife whose husband had abandoned her to live with a non-Jewish woman became an ever increasing phenomenon.[1] Many rabbis attempted to free the Jewish wife to remarry, even though she was unable to find the husband and receive a get. Some of the solutions were based on broad institutional enactments, while others dealt with the problem on a case-by-case analysis. One of the principles underlying the foundation of much of this discussion is the halakhic status of civil marriages and of weddings performed by Reform rabbis. Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin disagreed about the status of these marriages and this disagreement played an important role in their view of the agunah problem. Understanding their particular views is vital for the understanding of the agunah issue and for the appreciation of the important roles that these two American rabbinic giants played on this issue. Rabbi Henkin discussed this issue in a number of articles and teshuvot. His earliest treatment of civil marriage appears in a series of articles in Hapardes in 1934, where Rabbi Henkin argued that a civil marriage is considered a marriage according to Jewish law and that a get would be required to terminate such a marriage.[2] He explained that a couple is considered halakhically married even though they did not have a Jewish ceremony and do not intend to be married according to Jewish law. According to Rabbi Henkin, the validity of the marriage is achieved by the fact that the couple lives together as husband and wife. He added that the Jews who see them together as a couple satisfy the requirement of witnesses in establishing the halakhic status of the marriage. In an article in his book, Perushei Ibra, Rabbi Henkin explained the rational for his position through the comparison to a similar historical situation.[3] He quoted a fascinating responsum of Rivash, Rabbi Isaac ben Sheshet Perfet (1326-1408), communal rabbi in Algeria who had fled Spain following the anti-Jewish riots of 1391.[4] Rivash described that he was approached by a woman who had been a converso in Majorca. After she had escaped to North Africa she asked whether she could remarry even though she did not have a get from her first husband. She explained that she had been married by a priest after both she and her husband had been forced to convert to Christianity. After the marriage they had lived together as a married couple. The husband was not available to give her a get. Rivash decided in this case that the woman could remarry and did not require a get. Rabbi Henkin argued that Rivash’s case is unique as this couple was married by a priest and no longer lived among Jews. This situation, argued Rabbi Henkin, cannot be compared to the American situation where a man and woman are married by a civil authority and live together among Jews. Rabbi Feinstein responded to Rabbi Henkin’s decision in a number of teshuvot in Iggerot Moshe. In the earliest teshuvah, dated June 28, 1959, Rabbi Feinstein argued that a civil marriage does not require termination via a get.[5] Rather, the couple can remarry even without a get. He explained that in the United States where people easily move in and out of relationships, the fact that a couple gets married in a civil ceremony and then lives together is not considered proof that they are married according to the halakhah. He relied on the precedent of Rivash and argued that American civil marriages can be equated to that situation of the fifteenth century. Interestingly, he wrote that even though the halakhah does not require a get, if it is possible for the wife to obtain a get she should follow the opinion of Rabbi Henkin and terminate the marriage through a get. It would appear that Rabbi Feinstein would agree that in a situation where the wife received a get she would not be able to marry a kohen. Concerning a couple that was married by a Reform rabbi, Rabbi Feinstein wrote in a number of teshuvot that this wedding is not recognized according to the halakhah and a get is not required to terminate this marriage.[6] He explained that the only time the wedding would be valid is in a situation where there are two observant Jew who witness the ceremony. However, he claimed that even in that case the Reform rabbi often does not perform the marriage ceremony properly so the wedding would not be valid. Concerning the question of whether the fact that the couple lives together as husband and wife is a factor, Rabbi Feinstein wrote that a Reform ceremony is worse than a civil ceremony. A couple that gets married in a civil ceremony understands that this ceremony is not a Jewish one and that the fact that they live together binds them as a Jewish couple. However, a couple that is married in a Reform ceremony believes that this ceremony is a religious one and do not have the necessary intention of consummating the marriage when they live together. Nevertheless, he believed that if possible the woman should arrange to receive a get.[7] In 1964, Rabbi Henkin wrote a letter to an unnamed rabbi who had ruled that a get is not needed to terminate a marriage when the ceremony had been performed by a Reform rabbi. Rabbi Henkin explained: And the wonder of wonders, which makes one’s hair stand on edge, is that you are lenient regarding a marriage performed by a Reform rabbi. Is there really a need for an officiating rabbi? If a Jewish man says to a Jewish woman “you are mine” in front of witnesses, then she becomes his wife. And, if there are no witnesses at the ceremony, the fact that they live together as a married couple for many years is considered acceptable testimony. What difference does it make if the witnesses were Reform?[8] Rabbi Henkin admonishes this unnamed rabbi that he must not allow other rabbis to rely on this incorrect lenient opinion. Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin disagreed regarding both civil marriages and Reform ceremonies. While the issues are connected, they revolve around different considerations. Rabbi Feinstein looked at American society as a promiscuous one in which a man and woman living together did not reflect a relationship of commitment while Rabbi Henkin saw a more traditional society where relationships reflected commitment. It is fascinating that two Torah scholars who lived several blocks from one another could see American society so differently. The generation of rabbis and scholars who immigrated to the United States from Eastern Europe were forced to reconcile their recollections of the past with the realities of the present. That reconciliation took different forms for different rabbis. It would appear that with regard to a couple married in a Reform ceremony, the differing rulings of these two Torah giants were based on their understanding of the Reform movement. Rabbi Feinstein believed that Reform rabbis were attempting to undermine halakhic Judaism and anything that they did was problematic and needed to be avoided. On the other hand, Rabbi Henkin, while rejecting the religious positions of the Reform movement, did not feel that the Reform rabbis were a threat to the Orthodox. Consequently he felt that whether a wedding was conducted by a Reform rabbi was immaterial. Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin disagreed as to the extent to which the Reform movement created a risk to the Orthodox movement.[9] The positions of Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin had critical implications for the issue of agunah. According to Rabbi Feinstein, if a couple was married civilly or by a Reform rabbi and then the husband refused to give a get, the wife may remarry as this marriage is not considered halakhically valid. According to Rabbi Henkin, in such a situation, the woman would require a get. It would appear that Rabbi Henkin’s understanding of civil and Reform marriages stands as a serious impediment to the resolution of the agunah problem. However, in an article written in 1928, Rabbi Henkin alerted the community to the fact that he was very much concerned with the problem of the agunah and began by describing the current situation: In the past few years the problem of the agunah has increased in Europe and here in America.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Jews, Gentiles, and the Modern Egalitarian Ethos
    Jews, Gentiles, and the Modern Egalitarian Ethos: Some Tentative Thoughts David Berger The deep and systemic tension between contemporary egalitarianism and many authoritative Jewish texts about gentiles takes varying forms. Most Orthodox Jews remain untroubled by some aspects of this tension, understanding that Judaism’s affirmation of chosenness and hierarchy can inspire and ennoble without denigrating others. In other instances, affirmations of metaphysical differences between Jews and gentiles can take a form that makes many of us uncomfortable, but we have the legitimate option of regarding them as non-authoritative. Finally and most disturbing, there are positions affirmed by standard halakhic sources from the Talmud to the Shulhan Arukh that apparently stand in stark contrast to values taken for granted in the modern West and taught in other sections of the Torah itself. Let me begin with a few brief observations about the first two categories and proceed to somewhat more extended ruminations about the third. Critics ranging from medieval Christians to Mordecai Kaplan have directed withering fire at the doctrine of the chosenness of Israel. Nonetheless, if we examine an overarching pattern in the earliest chapters of the Torah, we discover, I believe, that this choice emerges in a universalist context. The famous statement in the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 4:5) that Adam was created singly so that no one would be able to say, “My father is greater than yours” underscores the universality of the original divine intent. While we can never know the purpose of creation, one plausible objective in light of the narrative in Genesis is the opportunity to actualize the values of justice and lovingkindness through the behavior of creatures who subordinate themselves to the will 1 of God.
    [Show full text]
  • Eliezer Brodt – the Origins of Hamentashen In
    Eliezer Brodt – The Origins of Hamentashen in Jewish Literature The Origins of Hamentashen in Jewish Literature: A Historical-Culinary Survey By Eliezer Brodt I. Introduction As Jews, most of our holidays have special foods specific to them; and behind each culinary custom, lays enveiled the reasoning behind them. Shavuot brings with it a vast array of customary dairy delicacies – in some parts of the world, cheesecake is practically obligatory – not to mention different customs in regard to how and when to eat them. Rosh Hashanah in renowned for the different fruits and vegetables eaten as physical embodiments symbolizing our tefillot; Chanukah has fried foods (no trans-fats please); whether latkes sizzling in the frying pan, or the elusive Israeli sufganiyot (jelly doughnuts) seen for a month before but not to be found a minute after Chanukah’s departure, and on the fifteenth of Shevat a veritable plethora of fruits are sampled in an almost ‘Pesach Seder’-like ceremony. Of course, on Purim we eat hamentashen. Hamentashen. Those calorie-inflated, Atkins-defying, doughy tri-cornered confections filled with almost anything bake- able. The Mishpacha reports that this year in Israel alone, an astounding 24.5 million hamentashen will be sold, weighing 1225 tons, and yielding an approximate 33 million NIS in sales.[1] The question that many will be asking themselves is “where did this minhag to eat hamentashen come from?” Recently I started researching this topic; thus far (and I hope to find more) my results are as follows. II. Origins The earliest source I have located so far is in a liturgical parody from the seventeenth century, where it includes a reference to eating hamentashen.[2] In an 1846 cook book called The Jewish Manual by Lady Judith Cohen Montefiore we find a recipe for “Haman fritters.”[3] R.
    [Show full text]
  • Strong-Arm Tactics and Tefillin
    בס“ד Parshat Bo 10 Shevat, 5781/January 23, 2021 Vol. 12 Num. 20 (#481) This issue of Toronto Torah is dedicated by David and Nina Bernstein in honour of Rabbi Chaim Metzger This issue of Toronto Torah is dedicated by Jeffrey C. Silver in memory of Tzvi Zushia Aryeh ben Binyamin Kammer z”l, a tzaddik and a talmid chochom Strong-arm Tactics and Tefillin Rabbi Adam Friedmann The very end of our parshah includes The presence of these items reminds us is symbolized by matzah, a bread which two quick paragraphs, each detailing constantly of basic elements of our most directly portrays its ingredients an important mitzvah. The first is the faith, enabling us to incorporate them without the human intervention that command to eat matzah on Pesach into our general consciousness. This would (literally) inflate them and alter and the prohibition against owning way, the nobler aspirations of the soul their appearance. According to Rabbi chametz. The second is redemption of can overcome base desires. Given this Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin (Ha’ameik firstborn animals and children. G-d explanation, it seems that the story of Davar to Shemot 13:3) this is a message tells Moshe that all the firstborn are to the Exodus left us with different types about Jewish survival. No matter the be consecrated to Him, and of mitzvot. Some of these, like the great, usually very necessary, lengths to subsequently, a process of redemption Pesach sacrifice and marror, recall which we go to survive and thrive, these is required. The descriptions of these historical events which need to be efforts only ever amount to chametz.
    [Show full text]
  • CONTENTS Editor's Introduction to the Kislev 5765 Edition Eugene Korn
    CONTENTS Editor’s Introduction to the Kislev 5765 Edition Eugene Korn ARTICLES Rabbis Joseph B. Soloveitchik and Abraham Joshua Heschel on Jewish-Christian Relations Reuven Kimelman Contemporary Fads and Torah u-Madda: A Response to Alan Brill Yitzchak Blau Response by Alan Brill Women and Writing the Megillah Ross Singer Edah in Israel Saul. J. Berman Moshe Tur-Paz From De’ot The Challenge of Unmarried Women: Does Defining Them as a “Problem” Meet a Social Need? Hagit Bartov REVIEW ESSAYS A Critique of Expanding the Palace of Torah: Orthodoxy and Feminism by Tamar Ross Yoel Finkelman Response by Tamar Ross Tears of the Oppressed by Aviad Hacohen Michael J. Broyde REVIEW What Makes a Book Orthodox? Wrestling With God and Men by Steve Greenberg Reviewed by Asher Lopatin The Edah Journal 4:2 Edah Inc. © 2004 Kislev 5765 The Edah Journal A Forum of Modern Orthodox Discourse Statement of Purpose The Edah Journal is a forum for discussion of Orthodox Judaism’s engagement with modernity. It is Edah’s conviction that such discourse is vital to nurturing the spiritual and religious experiences of Modern Orthodox Jews. Committed to the norms of halakhah and Torah, The Edah Journal is dedicated to free inquiry and will be ever mindful that, “Truth is the seal of the Holy One, Blessed be He.” Editorial Board Eugene Korn - Editor Naftali Harcsztark – Associate Editor Joel Linsider – Text Editor Moshe Halbertal (Israel) Richard Joel Norma Baumel Joseph Simcha Krauss Barry Levy Dov Linzer Tamar Ross (Israel) Directions for Submissions The Edah Journal invites submissions of original scholarly and popular essays, as well as new English translations of Hebrew works.
    [Show full text]
  • Daf 16-10 Tova.Indd
    ww ww VOLUME z y / NO. 10 TAMMUZ-AV 5768 / JULY-AUG 2008 SUMMER EDITION s xc THEDaf a K ashrus A MONTHLY NHEWSLETTE R FOR THE OU RABBINIC FIELD REPRESENTATIVE We are often confronted with Items that have a specific density less than one are lighter than rrugk tkt h,tc tk situations in which we must water and pound per pound will take up more volume than determine if issur is batel in water. For example, the specific gravity of olive oil is .703. This CALCULATING BITUL heter. Sometimes this is very indicates that it will take 85.4 pounds of water to be mivatel BY RABBI ELI GERSteN easy to figure out. Under 1 pound of olive oil. This is because 1 (pound of olive oil) divided RC- Recorder of OU Psak and Policy normal circumstances if 10 by .703 (specific density) = 1.422 (volume). We need 60 times that grams of issur is used with number to be mivatel it b’shishim. 60 * 1.422 = 85.4. (Note that it 5,000 lbs. of heter it will be batel1. Other times it might be more takes twice as much water to be mivatel 1 pound of olive oil as it complicated and we must take out our calculator to determine if does to be mivatel 1 pound of corn syrup) in fact there was sixty times more heter than issur. If the specific gravity that you are looking for does not appear on The Pischei Teshuva (Yoreh Deah 98:2) says that bitul must be this chart it may be available on the internet.
    [Show full text]
  • Halachic and Hashkafic Issues in Contemporary Society 155 - Halacha in Extreme Places Part 1 - Crossing the Halachic Date Line Ou Israel Center - Winter 2020
    5780 - bpipn mdxa` [email protected] 1 c‡qa HALACHIC AND HASHKAFIC ISSUES IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY 155 - HALACHA IN EXTREME PLACES PART 1 - CROSSING THE HALACHIC DATE LINE OU ISRAEL CENTER - WINTER 2020 A] WHY DO WE NEED AN INTERNATIONAL DATE LINE? From the 14th Century onwards geographers became aware (at least in principle) of what became known as ‘the circumnavigator’s paradox’. Since the world is a sphere, at any given time the sun’s position in the sky will depend on where the observer is standing on the globe. Since the day is 24 hours long and the globe has 360º, there will be a change of 1 hour for every 15º . Hence the time differences around the world are as follows:- FIG 1. The paradox is that if a person were standing in London at 1pm on Wednesday, each 15º that one moves further east is 1 hour later. In Israel (+2) it will be 3pm, in China (+8) it will be 9pm and all the way around to London (+24) it will be 1pm on Thursday. Yet it is clearly still 1pm on Wednesday on London!! This means that at some point when travelling east the person must go back one day, and when travelling west must go forwards one day. By the 16th Century, sailors were circumnavigating the world on a regular basis and realized on arrival at their destinations that they were often one day out from the locals. During the 17th Century it became clear that a meridian had to be drawn marking the change of date - “The Date Line” - and it was accepted that this would have to cut through the Pacific Ocean.
    [Show full text]
  • Bigdei Shesh.Pdf
    © Copyright 2006 Published by Reuven Meir through lulu.com For more copies, visit: http://www.lulu.com/reuven Read more of Rabbi Bechhofer’s writings at his blog: http://rygb.blogspot.com and at his website: http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/ To listen to Rabbi Bechhofer’s shiurim including his Daf HaYomi Yerushalmi, visit: http://www.teachittome.com and http://www.yerushalmionline.org Bigdeh Shesh The collected writings of Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer Table of Contents ESSAYS ON HASHKAFAH...................................... 8 FACING THE MACHASHAVAH CHALLENGE.............................. 8 FORKS IN THE ROAD: OLD DIVISIONS, MODERN RAMIFICATIONS ..................................................................................... 20 THINK, ASK, INTERNALIZE!................................................ 41 GOOD CHUMROS?........................................................... 52 MEZUZOS, MACHLOKOS AND EILU V'EILU DIVREI ELOKIM CHAYIM ......................................................................... 64 BITACHON, HISHTADLUS, HISTAPKUS................................. 75 THE DVEYKUS VS. SHLEYMUS DEBATE.............................. 89 HAKHEL, SUKKOS, AND ACHDUS ....................................... 90 JUDAISM AND RACISM...................................................... 94 THESIS: JUDAISM AND COUNSELING ................................. 99 AYIN HO’RA.................................................................. 146 THE VALUE OF S’MICHAH ............................................... 149 SHIDDUCHIM IN AMERICA ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Adam Mintz —
    Adam Mintz — The Manhattan Eruv In a previous contribution to the Seforim blog, Rabbi Adam Mintz discussed the significant roles of Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in the development of a unique halakhic response to the issue of the mehitzah in the American synagogue, based on a previous lecture delivered as part of his “History of American Poskim” series at Kehilat Rayim Ahuvim on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. The following historical and halakhic overview of the issues surrounding the Manhattan eruv is based on Rabbi Mintz’s doctoral dissertation, “The Evolution of the American Orthodox Community: The History of the Communal Eruv” (New York University, forthcoming). The Manhattan Eruv By Adam Mintz The first Manhattan eruv was created in 1905 by Rabbi Yehoshua Seigel who was one of the most notable rabbinic scholars of the time. He was born in Poland and served as a rabbi in Sherps before immigrating to the Unites States. He maintained the title Sherpser Rav in America and quickly became the leader of the Polish community in New York. He described the eruv and his impetus for creating it in his volume Eruv ve- Hotza’ah (New York, 1907).[1] Rabbi Seigel’seruv only encompassed the Lower East Side, utilizing the natural riverbanks of Manhattan on three sides and on the fourth side, the Third Avenue El. There was rabbinic opposition to Rabbi Seigel’s eruv. This view is elaborated upon by Rabbi Yehudah David Bernstein in Hilkhata Rabta le-Shabbata (Brooklyn, 1910). Rabbi Bernstein, who studied at Slabodka, was one of the founders and early teachers at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Yeshiva in New York.[2] This eruv was utilized by many within the Polish and Galician communities throughout the first half of the twentieth century.
    [Show full text]
  • ARU Preliminary Report Revd
    Towards a Solution to the Problem of the Mesorevet Get Preliminary Report of the Agunah Research Unit* University of Manchester November 2006 NB: The contents of this paper are purely theoretical. Nothing written or cited herein is intended for use in practice. Any practical question in the area of personal status in Orthodox Judaism, whether touching upon marriage, divorce, bastardy or conversion, must be submitted to those with the appropriate Orthodox halakhic authority. 1.0 Introduction: History and Authority 2 2.0 Conditions 3 2.1 The R. Yoseh tradition in the Yerushalmi 3 2.2 Use of R. Yoseh’s condition 5 2.3 Authority of R. Yoseh’s condition 6 2.4 The condition of the a5 mumar 7 2.5 The 20th century debate 8 2.6 Preserving the tenai 10 2.7 Effect of the tenai 11 2.8 Implied Terminative conditions 12 3.0 Coercion 12 3.1 Overview 12 3.2 The talmudic text 15 3.3 What did the Geonim do? 17 3.4 By what authority did they do it? 19 3.5 Rabbenu Tam’s position and its dogmatic status 22 3.6 Ashkenazim and Sephardim 24 4.0 Grounds and Evidence for Divorce 25 5.0 Annulment 27 6.0 Issues of Authority 29 6.1 Introduction 29 6.2 Primary and Secondary Rules 29 6.3 Hilkheta kebatra’ei and historical error 29 6.4 Majority, Consensus and Special %umrot 30 6.5 Exploiting sefeq sefeiqa 33 6.6 The Contemporary Situation 35 7.0 Towards a Solution 36 * This Preliminary Report draws extensively on a series of Working Papers of the Agunah Research Unit, all of which may be downloaded from the Unit’s web site, at http://www.mucjs.org/publications.htm, and are here referred to, respectively, as “Directions”, “Conditional Marriage”, “Consensus”, “Za’aqat” and “Morgenstern” and cited by paragraph numbers.
    [Show full text]
  • Torah Musings Digests
    Torah Musings Digests July through October, 2014 as published on www.TorahMusings.com Unedited Introduction Started as the Hirhurim blog in 2004, Torah Musings relaunched in August 2013 as an online periodical focusing on multiple areas of interest, including: Textual Studies – halakhah (Jewish law),hashkafah (Jewish thought), history and parshanut (biblical commentary) that is clear, interesting, valuable to experienced students but understandable to those with limited Jewish education; News Stories and Commentary – thoughtful responses based on Jewish texts and traditions to issues of the day; Dialogue – differing views within the Orthodox camp, discussing with post and counter-post or in the responses. In July 2014, the website began sending weekly digests in PDF format. This booklet contains a collection of these weekly digests from July through October 2014, unrevised and in the same format originally sent. Currently, these PDF files flow automatically and sometimes misinterpret formatting commands. Therefore, there are occasional stray sentences that should be ignored. Please note that authorship of each essay is clear on the website but not always in the weekly digest. Unless otherwise indicated, assume that I wrote an essay. Many people contributed to this project. The editorial committee for the first year consisted of R. Micha Berger, R. Basil Herring and R. Moshe Schapiro, the last two continuing into the second year. These three scholars devoted many hours to improving and maintaining the website’s standards. I thank them for their hard work. During the period of this collection, Efraim Vaynman and David Roth served as editorial interns. I thank them both for their hard work.
    [Show full text]
  • The Torah U-Madda Journal Devoted to the Interaction Between Torah and General Culture
    THE TORAH U-MADDA JOUR NAL DEVOTED TO THE INTERACTION BETWEEN JUDAISM AND GENERAL CULTURE EDITOR : DAVID SHATZ EDITORIAL ASSISTANT : MEIRA MINTZ FOUNDING EDITOR : JACOB J. SCHACTER , 1989–1999 VOLUME EIGHTEEN • 2020-21 The Torah u-Madda Journal Devoted to the interaction between Torah and general culture. Copyright © 2021 Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, an affiliate of Yeshiva University. David Shatz, Editor Meira Mintz, Editorial Assistant Jacob J. Schacter, Founding Editor A publication of The Torah u-Madda Project Max Stern Division of Communal Services Center for the Jewish Future Yeshiva University 500 West 185th Street New York, NY 10033 The Torah u-Madda Project gratefully acknowledges the support of the Joseph J. and Bertha K. Green Memorial Fund at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary. The Torah u-Madda Journal publishes articles that either (1) address the question of Judaism’s relationship to general culture, whether in the broad sense or in the context of a specific discipline or field; or (2) exemplify the integration of Jewish and general knowledge in the treat - ment of a specific topic. Correspondence should be sent to Dr. David Shatz at [email protected]. Back issues of the journal are available online at www.yutorah.org. Design and production by David Olivestone PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA p This issue is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm and Mrs. Mindella Lamm הרב נחום בן מאיר שמואל ופעריל מינדל בת שלום וטויבע העסא ת u נ u צ u ב u ה p A A q q Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm zz.
    [Show full text]
  • Kitzur Taarich Yisroel
    Kitzur Taarich Yisroel The DATE LINE in HALACHA A halachic guide to the laws of the Date Line Condensed from Sefer Taarich Yisroel By Rabbi Yisroel Taplin Compiled by Zalman Tropper 1 Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………….1 1. Is there a Halachic Date Line?……………………………5 The Concept of a Date Line, 5 The Date Line in Halacha, 6 Ba’al Hamaor, 8 Chazon Ish, 9 Rav Y.M. Tukatzinsky, 10 Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, 13 Rav Yonasan Shteif, 14 Sefer Ha’ibur, 15 Rav Dovid Shapiro, 15 Rav Yonah Mertzbach, 16 Summary, 16 2. Living Beyond the Date Line………………………………18 Diametrically opposed views, 19 Compromise Solution, 20 Zilzul Shabbos, 21 Tefilin, 23 Sefiras Haomer, 24 Yom Kippur, 25 3. Crossing the Date Line…………………………..…………26 Shabbos, 27 Matzo, Shofar, Megila, 30 Chanuka, 31 Bris Mila, Pidyon Haben, Bar Mitzva, 33 Shiva Nekiyim, 36 Vestos, 37 Tefila, 38 Rosh Chodesh, Hallel, Musaf, 40 Birchos Hashachar, 40 Pesukei Dezimra, 41 Krias Shma, 41 2 Tefilin, 41 Sefiras Haomer, 42 Fast Days, 44 4. Conclusions…………………………………………….46 The date Line Location, 46 Living Beyond the Date Line, 46 Crossing the Date Line, 47 Guidelines for Psak Halacha, 49 Applications in Practice New York to Japan, 54 New York to Korea and Australia, 56 New York to Hawaii, 56 Israel or Europe to the Far East, 56 Applications of the Halachos of Shiva, Mila, Pidyon Haben, 57 Appendix Exposition of the Baal Hamaor’s opinion by Dr. Ken Trabert Maps 3 Is there a Halachic Date Line? Every map of the world has a very clear zigzag line running vertically through the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and Japan called the International Date Line.
    [Show full text]