Three Weeks - Igrot Moshe Orach Chaim 4:112

In a brief, multi-section teshuva from 1957, Rav Moshe Feinstein quickly rules on several issues concerning the three weeks:

1) A person is allowed to sing zemirot on the Shabbat preceding Tisha B'Av (Shabbat Chazon), even if the person is not accustomed to singing zemirot on a regular Shabbat. This is due to the fact that kavod Shabbat overrides any of our customs for the three weeks. Similarly, one can eat meat during seudah shlishit on that week, even if Tisha B'Av is that night.

2) A person can shave or take a haircut on the night of the 17th of Tammuz if it is absolutely necessary (since even though the date has arrived, the fast does not begin until the morning).

3) A person can buy meat during the nine days for consumption after the nine days, and does not have to worry that someone who sees him will think that he intends to eat it now (marit ayin).

Blog Update

My apologies for not blogging for a while - I am recovering from a computer crash which set me back on most of my work over the past few weeks. Hopefully posts will begin to come regularly again.

Davening in bad places - Igrot Moshe Orach Chayim 1:31

In 1952, Rav Menachem Eichenstein, Chief Rabbi of Saint Louis, asked about a shul that wanted to daven on ימים נוראים in a place that was normally used for all sorts of abominable practices (the teshuva does not specify what they are). Rav Moshe Feinstein forbade using such a place on several grounds:

1) We have a rule that it is a good thing to daven in the place where one learns. We can thus derive that the normal usage of a location has an impact on the davening that takes place there, and thus if the place is used for sinning then it is not a good place to also daven.
2) An advantage of davening with a minyan is the presence of the שכינה. However, such a locale would neutralize that advantage.
3) The ספר יראים discusses the case of a shul where the שמש had an affair with a young girl in the building. He rules that the shul can still be used for davening, since the shul was already designated as a holy place, and thus the individual could not make forbidden that which was not his to forbid. However, if the location was intended to be used for forbidden purposes, then it would stand to reason that davening could not take place there.

Rav Feinstein concludes that if the congregation wanted to buy this place outright and convert it into a shul, then that would be permissible.

Small Kippot - Igrot Moshe Orach Chayim 1:1

In this first teshuva in Igrot Moshe, Rav Moshe Feinstein was asked if one is permitted to walk around with his head only partially covered, i.e. if he is wearing a small kippa.

Interestingly, Rav Feinstein does not attempt to define how much of the head is too much or too little (at what point in the slope downward of the head does one no longer need to cover it?). However, he cites the view of Rav Shlomo Kluger who states that one can walk fewer than four amot with the head partially covered and not at all if the head is uncovered. Rav Feinstein's analysis then demonstrates that Rav Kluger seems to have an extreme view on this point, and that the wearing of a kippa is largely a מדת חסידות, although nowadays it has been accepted by Jews as a requirement for everyone. Rav Feinstein concludes that given its near-universal acceptance, one should not even sit without wearing a kippa, as there may be a חוקות עכו"ם problem (although it is not completely clear what practice of the non-Jews this would be emulating).

Selling a Shul - Igrot Moshe Orach Chayim 3:28

In this 1966 teshuva to HaRav Gedalia Anemer zt"l (who just passed away recently), Rav Moshe Feinstein deals with the question of whether or not a community may sell a shul if most of the people in the community have left and those who remain can barely afford to keep the shul open. The question is further complicated by the fact that it is likely that any buyer will turn the shul into a church. Additionally, it seems that the neighborhood in question is a rough one, and there are local hoodlums who vandalize the shul.

[ed. - It is not clear to me which community, if any in particular, is being referred to, but this does sound like what happened in Newark and Jersey City in the 1960's and 70's]

Rav Feinstein replies that the remaining members are not obligated to spend money to keep open a shul that they cannot afford. Furthermore, they should also move the sifrei Torah, and perhaps all sifrei kodesh in the shul into a safe place so that they are not vandalized. With regard to the fear of the shul becoming a church, Rav Feinstein says that even if the proceeds from the sale are not going to be used to build a new shul, nevertheless the shul can be sold without worrying what it is going to be used for. However, it is better to go through a broker, and specifically a non-Jewish one (so as to create several layers of possible לפני עור). Furthermore, Rav Feinstein allows the members to be active in the sale in the hopes that they will help keep the price high and thus the community will maximize its profit.

Changing the Nusach in Shul - B'Mareh HaBazak vol. 6

A note of introduction: B'Mareh HaBazak is a collection of responsa written by the scholars in Kollel Eretz Chemdah, an institution in Israel dedicated to producing high-quality Talmidei Chachamim and judges. The teshuvot are unsigned by any particular scholar.

In a teshuva wrutten in 2005, the community in Pforzheim, Germany asked whether they could change the nusach that is used for davening in their shul. As the shul was originally populated by Jews of Middle Eastern descent, the nusach used was that of Eidot HaMizrach. However, over the years the community changed in its make-up and a new building was built, and the question posed was whether they could switch to using nusach Sefarad, as per most communities in the Land of Israel.

The initial position taken in the teshuva is that the nusach of a shul should not be changed, certainly so long as original members of the shul remain. If people with a different nusach join the shul, they should daven to themselves with their own nusach, but the chazzan should use the official nusach of the shul.

However, in this case there was a desire to change the nusach not only to accomodate the newer members of the shul, but also as a way to draw more people into the shul who might otherwise not be affiliated with any shul (i.e. kiruv). As such, given those realities, plus the reality of a new building, there seems to be room to allow the change. It is recommended to also change the name of the shul, and to perhaps introduce some new by-laws, all in the name of creating a sense that this shul is a new entity and thus the change is part of a larger shift in the overall composition of the congregation.

Encouraging Chillul Shabbat - Igrot Moshe OC 1:99

In a teshuva written in 1953, Rav Moshe Feinstein responded to a question by Rav Naftali Carlebach of Detroit as to whether one could invite people to a minyan on Shabbat if it was known that they would travel by car. Rav Moshe responds that despite the kiruv aspect, it is definitely forbidden, not only because of לפני עור, but also because of a conceptual relationship to the notion of מסית. Rav Moshe then says that if the people in question live within walking distance but may drive anyway, then there is still a לפני עור problem but not necessarily one of מסית. Furthermore, if there is no explicit invitation to join the minyan, merely an informing that the minyan is going on, then it is questionable if there is any problem.

In the final paragraph, Rav Moshe deals with the question of whether or not someone should quit a shul where many people behave improperly. Rav Moshe feels that one should remain in such a shul in the hopes of being a positive influence, and should not despair. However, if the shul is actively regressing, such as by removing the mechitza, then a person should certainly refuse to be a member of such as shul.