Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 016

Monday, May 3 2004

• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: When is a Mechitzah Necessary?
• Adir Adireiny
• Adir Adirenu
• Adir Adireinu and Yimloch
• Yom HaShoah: New Insight
• Defining music
• opposition to upsheren/upsherin custom - observation from sidra
• Pinui haMet: Is Gush Katif "Eretz Yisrael" ?
• Re: Limmud or Ma'aseh?
• Hot water on Shabbos
• Re: Hot water on Shabbos
• Re: Hot water on Shabbos
• re: Defining music
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue

In  Avodah V13 #14 dated 4/30/04 
> >so a c synagogue sanctuary qualifies as a synagogue
> >sanctuary but it's in a bet minut?

> It loses its kedushah because it does not have a mechitzah. You can't
> then argue that because it does not have a mechitzah it does not need
> one. That's circular logic.

Luckily for the avoidance of circularity, a C place of worship lacks
kedusha for many reasons. It is certainly true that it has no status
of a synagogue and therefore does not need a mechitza. It is assur to
daven there, but not because it lacks a mechitza.

  Omer Day 23
 -Toby Katz

Quoting from/Respoding to many different people from many different posts:
>>Can I eat with people who don't make brachot?

> Good question.

Can I daven in an O shul when I know people will be talking during
chazaras hashatz?

Or: where I know people will be davening shemona esrei without the
required kavanah for all 19 brochos? (creating the possibility of a
bracha l'vatala?)

My point being, obviously, that unless we surround ourselves, 100%
with tzaddikim, we are _always_ amongst those who are sinners.

Can I be present in my parent's home if somebody is not eating kosher
food there?

This is not to say, of course, that I am arguing that: "therefore we
can go anywhere". Certainly, maris ayin plays a role in where we go.

> RAW brought RSZA's Minchas Shlomo (1:35), who says that if you DON'T
> give him water, you're creating a lifnei iver of Sinas Chinam, and
> therefore you're allowed to give him something to drink even if he won't
> make a bracha.

> I would argue that at least in some circumstances it could be lifnei
> iver if you refuse to eat with someone who won't make brachos - lifnei
> iver for sinas chinam.

I would think an even stronger argument is Kavod HaBriyos.  (Look at all
the examples in Gemara Brochos 19b)

> Some years ago we were invited to a family bar mitzvah which was to take
> place in a C synagogue. I asked RAS zt'l what I should do. He said
> (paraphrased) you know that I am a big believer in sholem bayit, this
> also applies to sholem mishpacha. You should go, daven before and make
> certain that they do not offer any and surely do not accept any kibudim.

This also, to me, seems like an application of kavod habriyos (if there
are people in the family that would completely not understand and be
insulted and/or hurt by the non-attendance). Indeed, as my house and
my shul are within just a few blocks of a C shul, me, and member of my
community, have had many occasion to host shomer shabbos O guests who
attend a C bar mitzvah under just the above conditions (they daven at
home first, and go to the C shul and try to be somewhat inconspicuous,
no honors, etc.)

> This is the third anecdote in the past few weeks (that I can recall)
> where we see a posek being 'meikel' for something based on a chashash
> which is commonly not given much weight.

And I would argue that the mitzvah d'oraisa of kavod habriyos often
doesn't get enough weight.  It seems clear that under many circumstances,
kavod habriyos overrules an issur d'rabanan (see the Gemara in Brachos).

> In fact, wouldn’t this psak seem to disprove that commonly heard
> contention that "we don’t change halacha just because of what others
> might think about us"?

Is one changing the halacha? Or, rather, one is changing the behavior
because of what others may think of us -- but the halacha (being machmir
on sholom bayis or kavod habriyos) hasn't changed, has it? Just the
outcome has -- based on the particular facts of the case.

 - Sholom

On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 08:32 +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2004 at 19:46, Avi Burstein wrote:
> > This psak of RSZA seems quite amazing, doesn't it? A posek is allowing
> > an explicit SA to be overridden on the basis of a consideration which
> > definitely doesn't seem to be very strong. 

> If you think about it, it's not so amazing. The SA is based on Lifnei
> Iver. The chashash of sinas chinam is based on Lifnei Iver. If anything,
> there's probably more of an argument that the Lifnei Iver of Sinas Chinam
> is d'oraysa (trei ibrei d'nahara) because the guy can walk out of your
> house and get a drink, but it's with respect to YOU that he'll have the
> Sinas Chinam.

I think he thinks it's amazing, because its just so open ended.  For
example, what's the difference b/w this and me shaking a female's hand?
i.e. if they don't know, wouldn't the same lifnei iver of sinas chinam
apply?

RGS wrote:
> There are three issues involved in entering a C synagogue (i.e. without
> a mechitzah):

> 1. It is assur to enter a "beis minus" even if people are chasing you to
> kill you. In this respect, we are stricter with a "beis minus" than with
> a church for idolatry. It is questionable, though, whether a C synagogue
> can be labeled a "beis minus". I can hear the logic, but I am sure that
> not everyone would agree.

AFAIK, from the gemara in 'Hullin 13a, and from Rashi there s.v. Min ("zeh 
ha-aduq beavodat kokhavim"), the min is no ordinary heretic, he is an idol 
worshipper lishmah. C doesn't cut it, thank G'd.

> 2. Maris ayin. People might think that you are going there to daven,
> which is assur. However, if there are other reasons you might be going
> there, such as for a community gathering, then maris ayin probably does
> not apply. (Each case is different)

A known public gathering should be similar to the case of cooking chicken in 
almond milk, where the presence of almonds, i.e. the knowledge that we are 
not dealing with the prohibition, is sufficient to remove the problem of 
mar`it 'ayin. Not all posqim agree, this depends on whether a label could 
replace the almonds or whether we need almonds davka. However, many posqim 
would not consider this M'A.

> 3. One may not be in a place where others are sinning. Since davening
> without a mechitzah is a sin, one may not be in a place where people are
> davening without a mechitzah. At times when people are not davening,
> and a mechitzah is not otherwise required (if there are such cases),
> then this would not be a problem. However, many poskim hold that any
> gathering held in a synagogue sanctuary requires a mechitzah.

A C sanctuary isn't a synagogue AFAIK. It would only depend on the 
disagreement whether a large gather needs a me'hitzah.

good Shabbos,
Arie Folger

I don't have the sources in front of me right now, but relevant teshuvos
on the subject are: Shu"t Maharam Schick, OC 71; Shu"t Beis Hillel 104
(reprinted in English and Hebrew in Baruch Litvin ed., Sanctity of the
Synagogue); RYBS in two essays printed in Sanctity of the Synagogue,
pp. 110, 115. Maharam Schick is the one who gives an explanation for the
issur. (Note that in terms of kana'us, Maharam Schick was nowhere near
the Beis Hillel. Jacob Katz discusses this in his HaKera SheLo Nisachah.)

How this can be an issur de'oraisa? I don't know. RH Schachter said it
to me (about 13 years ago) in the context of a place where mixed dancing
is taking place (high school prom) and I regret never asking him the
source of the issur. I could speculate that it might be of machazik
yedei ovrei aveirah, but I'm not sure if that is de'oraisa. Perhaps
it involves a bittul of hochei'ach tochi'ach. In the case of the prom,
though, there are other problems with watching the dancing (lo sasuru
acharei... einechem is definitely de'oraisa). But he specifically quoted
the passuk in Tehillim (and implicitly the Gemara in AZ).

Of course, even RHS would agree that there are exceptional cases in
which heterim can be applied.

(And, for the record, this is only one footnote in my article and is
nowhere near being the actual subject.)

[Email #2. -mi]

Avi Burstein wrote:
>This psak of RSZA seems quite amazing, doesnt it? A posek 
>is allowing an explicit SA to be overridden on the basis of a 
>consideration which definitely doesnt seem to be very strong. 

More evidence against RD Sperber's claim that halachah is paralyzed.

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

Avi Burstein wrote:
>Ok, so I'll rephrase the question. Why would a private
>function have any different allowances for intermingling
>of the sexes than a public one?

It should, hopefully, be obvious that you do not need a mechitzah when
you have friends over for dinner. But there is a Gemara that implies
that a mechitzah is required for large public gatherings. So what is
the differentiation, i.e. the dividing line? According to RM Feinstein,
the distinction is private vs. public.

The underlying logic behind it is, presumably, that when you have a lot
of different people together who may not have any serious connection then
there is more likelihood of impropriety. We may not like such assumptions
about human nature, but these assumptions seem to be pretty clear in
the sources and, from my experience, are fairly true about people.

[Email #2. -mi]

Akiva Miller wrote:
>the shul counts as a *private* gathering, which requires
>only separate seating, and does not require any mechitza
>at all, so the low mechitza which they had was more than
>enough.

I find this highly surprising. Many poskim consider separate seating to
be de'oraisa and a mechitzah to be derabbanan or a strong minhag. But
RMF rejects those positions and holds that mechitzah is de'oraisa.

>It seems to me from RGS's post that RMT *does* require
>separate seating at his shiur, and the invitations serve to allow
>the absence of mechitza.

I don't think so. I only heard this second-hand, although from a close
student of RM Tendler's. But I don't think he requires separate seating.

>perhaps RMT considers the invitations to make it a private
>gathering like a Sheva Brachos, where the women and men
>are actually mixed.

An example that RM Feinstein gives of a private affair - in writing -
is a *wedding* (kal vachomer a sheva berachos).

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

FWIW, I am convinced that the Yimloch as we have it in the kedusah was
lifted from the next to last paragraph {i.e. v'simloch} before Hamelech
Hakadosh in the RH and YK Shmone Esrai.

Proof?
Note that kdusas yotzeir lacks it and kedushah desidra {i.e. Uva leTzion}
Hashem Yimloch instead.

In my book on the Shema (http://targum.com/store/Levin.html) I show that
the kedusha of Yotzros is a special case of exteneded kedusha. The regular
weekday kedusha is extended and enlarged on many occasions, the longest is
on Rosh Hashana. The Yotztos kedusha is even longer in that it includes
the Shema and goes all the way over to shmone esrei where you find the
chasima of Hashem imloch leolam vaed right before the shmone esrei.

[Email #2. -mi]

I actually cover this as well in the book. To briefly encapsulate it,
would be to mention R. Hutner's point in the volume of Rosh Hashana,
also mentioned in the Gro's peirush on Sifra DeTzniusa, that there are
2 points of malchios - one acceptance of authority from below to above,
and the other confirmation of malchus from above to below. Obviously
the former comes first. The Shema is the former and the declaration of
Hashem Yimloch is the latter.

That's at least how I would propose to explain it.

M. Levin

While we're on the topic, what about saying "Adir Adirenu" on Shabbat
she-be-tokh ha-mo`ed? (The term "Shabbat Chol ha-Mo`ed" seems like a bit
like an oxymoron to me, but I suppose that could be a thread unto itself.)

The only reason that we're saying the "long" kedushah at all is because
of Shabbat, so it would seem to make sense that the mo`ed, which isn't
even "strong" enough to get us the long kedushah at all on the weekdays,
shouldn't have anything to add to it. (This is similar to the argument of
the Gra for mentioning only Shabbat in the berakhah after the haftarah
on Shabbat she-be-tokh ha-mo`ed, though the commonly accepted practice
follows him only on Pesach, but not on Sukot.)

I've always assumed that siddur printers basically printed the Musaf
for Shalosh Regalim with 2 versions of kedushah, the short one for
"chol ha-mo`ed weekdays," and the long one for "Shabbat and yom tov,"
and in the absence of an explicitly printed note to omit it, some people
just began saying "Adir Adirenu" on Shabbat she-be-Tokh ha-Mo`ed because
it was printed there, without really thinking about it.

Given that the accepted practice is now to say it on yom tov, is anybody
aware of an explicitly recorded custom of saying it on Shabbat she-be-tokh
ha-mo`ed as well? I do recognize, of course, that the practices of
Shabbat she-be-tokh ha-mo`ed are often more than just the sum of those
of Shabbat and those of chol ha-mo`ed, as evidenced by the reading of
Shir ha-Shirim / Kohelet, the recitation of piyutim in some communities,
and the lechem ha-panim "show" that took place in the bet ha-mikdash,
as discussed here recently.

 -D.C.

Rinat Yisrael has Adir Adireina for YT in its nussach Ashkenaz siddur
and machzor, and omits it in its nussach Sfard siddur and machzor. This
causes considerable confusion in the shul I daven in.

Rich Wolpoe wrote:
>FWIW, I am convinced that the Yimloch as we have it in the kedusah was
>lifted from the next to last paragraph {i.e. v'simloch} before Hamelech
>Hakadosh in the RH and YK Shmone Esrai.

Indeed, many poskim hold that Yimloch is not an essential part of kedusha.
See Magen Avraham and MB on OCh 66:4. The MA holds that one in the middle
of SA does not say Yimloch. See also OCh 125.

The earliest source of kedusha AFAIK is Tosefta Brachot 1:11. Yimloch
is *not* included. The Chazon Yechezkel there cites this as a proof for
the MA

Saul Mashbaum

For some reason, during tachanun this morning the thought came to me:

On Areivim, for the most part, there has been much discussion of Yom
HaShoah, and much of it was intellectual, and much of it emotional.

One of the issues that arose (which I did not address), was whether the
character of Yom HaShoah is sufficiently "Jewish" or not.

It struck me this morning that the observances of the day really should
not define the character of the day - if you do not like the observance
in vogue, introduce other, more traditional ones.

It may even be argued, legitimately, that although the date of Yom
HaShoah was improperly fixed, at the wrong time and by the wrong people,
it should now be at least respected, if not accepted, by those who reject
its observance.

Nevertheless, it has always stricken me as a non-Jewish day, transcending
the specific points.

I realized this morning - it was in conjunction with a sadness about
yesterday's pigu'a in Azza that it struck me that it is inherently
non-Jewish to set a formal day to mourn the dead. It is forbidden, and
demonstrates a lack of emunah, to focus time and again on the tragedy
of death, and this is demonstrable from numerous ma'amarei Chazal.

We have no days in our calendar to remember the dead and mourn (note the
antithetical character of Lag ba'Omer!). As I heard many years ago from
RYBS, the perspective of Yahadus is to restrain and diminish aveilus
chadashah (on the dead and their death).

In the opposite direction, RYBS said, as to aveilus yeshanah (on
Yerushalayim and the Churban), we are charged to mourn as much as possible
and provoke more aveilus.

Indeed, all our national days of mourning stress the loss of the Beis
HaMikdash and the as yet not totally rebuilt Yerushalayim, and galus.

There are no days of mourning for death and destruction qua death and
destruction. There are days of mourning for the loss of kedushah and galus
- but there are no days of mourning for the destruction *of galus*. As
a part of days of mourning for other reasons we also mourn the loss of
Torah with the deaths of great scholars, and also the Chillul Hashem,
but not death and destruction themselves.

Even the days of Sefirah are not days of mourning for death. In the first
instance, there are other reasons given for the restraint of these days
(see the Ta'amei HaMinhagim). Moreover, there are no formal observances
associated with Sefirah.

But, most of all, the chilluk is that while the Holocaust is a tragedy
of epic proportions which we cannot grasp, and which the overwhelming
majority of Chachmei Yisroel do not dare to attribute to specific causes,
the cause of the death of talmidei R' Akiva is revealed and known -
and it is a direct continuation of the midda that caused the actual
Churban. If Sefirah has any relevance and its observances are at all
meaningful, it is only because it sends the message that "shelo nahagu
kavod zeh la'zeh" has the same devastating results as sinas chinam.

It is, therefore, the organic and instinctual Jewish attitude to diminish
aveilus chadashah that cannot accept the character of Yom HaShoah.

YGB

Posted by: micha@aishdas.org
> How do we define music WRT qol ishah and aveilus?
...
> Shirah seems to be rhythm + lyrics, and therefore includes both poetry and
> song. Would that mean an instrumental without voices wouldn't be shirah?

I would say going to the makor "B'Shir lo ishtu yain" in GIttin 7 that
music is anything that you would set a festive meal to. Rap or modern
classical dissonant varieties may not qualify.

M. Levin

We just read parshas Kedoshim which contains the mitzvoh of orloh - to
not use the fruit from a fruit tree for the first three years, and to
make the produce of the fourth year holy to Hashem like maaser sheini
(Vayikra 19:23-25). As orloh is usually cited by proponents of the
upsheren/upsherin custom as a basis for it, I figured that it might be
interesting to see if it is mentioned in the commentaries there.

I took a look at meforshim on the posuk in the standard 'mikro'os gedolos'
chumash and noticed that not one of them mentions anything about cutting
the hair of a young boy in relation to it. Interestingly, even the Ohr
Hachaim, who is revered by Hassidim and often discusses Kabbalistic
things, does not mention anything along such lines there (although he
does mention something else re young Jewish boys) ! Neither does the
Ramban, who also often comments along Kabbalistic lines.

This would seem to be a strong indication that shows that those Sepharadic
(and Ashkenazic) gedolim did not observe the 'upsheren' custom (cutting
hair at three years of age), that it is a recent thing, etc.

Rav Binyomin Shlomo Hamburger actually, in his piece on the inyan in
'Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz' volume III, mentions a custom of some places in
Morocco to cut the hair of young boys at the age of nine months. Perhaps
that was the custom of the Ohr Hachaim. Anyway, the point is that I
think that this silence speaks loudly.

Mordechai

I was unaware until yesterday that there were Jewish cemetaries in the
Gaza Strip (someone in shul had mentioned that bodies would need to be
reinterred in Israel). Yoreh Deah 363:1 permits "pinui ha'met" "k'dei
l'kovro b'eretz yisrael". What is the halachic status of Kush Katif ?

[I realize that the question is moot and the bodies will be reinterred
due to the next line in YD 363:1 "v'im eino mishtamer" since the Arabs
will probably defile the cemetary in any case]. But I'm still curious
especially as on Friday Rav Ovadiah Yosef claimed that Gush Katif *is*
"eretz yisrael".

KT
Josh

From: "Moshe Schor"
>> But it was rejected by an even larger Chasidic community -- in an
>> earlier iteration I quoted R. levi Yitzchoq's take (Bais Halevi,
>> Ovos) as quite different from that of his contemporary R.  Chaim Volozhiner
>> on v'hogisoh boh yomom voloiloh. It was also rejected by TIDE german
>> and western societies.

> Can you please give the exact reference & quote from Rav Levi Yitzchoq 
> where he disagrees with Rav Chaim Volozhiner?

since i did it from memory in the first post, i got the catch phrase
wrong. rather than "v'hogisoh bo." this opinion is expressed in peirush
to ovos (bais hallevi) 2:2 on the catch phrase "yofeh talmud torah im
derech eretz".
 r. levi explains, as i previously described, that if one carries out
activities -- derech eretz/work -- while e.g. conducting business with
honesty demanded by torah, this IS talmud torah of the mishnoh. quite
different than R. Chaim that the only talmud torah is limmud which must,
ideally, be practiced 24/7. it is instructive to compare r. levi to R.
Chaim on this mishnoh. while R. Levi focuses on living a "normal" life in
a toradika way as mishnoh's message, R. Chaim suggests what is proposed
is ideal whereby a person who, nebech, works for living and seems unable
to engage in talmud torah at times, should still strive to learn even
while simultaneously engaged in non-limmud activities. i.e. mishnoh
wants us to parallel process learning during work.

it is instructive to consider some other examples of the "spin"
R. Chaim puts on sources that, lichoroh, might seem to question his
single minded focus on all limmud/all the time. Thus mishnoh tells us
"al sh'loshoh d'vorim ho'olom omeid, al hattoroh, ho'avodoh, u'g'milus
chasodim", according avodoh and acts of chesed equal status with torah
learning. but no -- R. Chaim informs us that this held true only until
ma'amad har sinai. but afterwards. the world was reduced to resting
on only one pillar -- torah (BTW difficult to understand since surely
avodoh refers to miqdosh -- post sinai. v'tzorikh iyyun).

or take t'hilim 128:2 that seemingly extols the virtue of working for a
living -- "y'gioh kapekhoh ki sokhail, ashrekhoh v'tov lokh". B'rokhos
8a adduces a homily to the effect that a working stiff is greater than
a yoreih shomayim -- of whom it is also written "ashrei ish" but is not
written "v'tov lokh". R. Chaim turns focus from a discussion of work to a
discussion of -- torah. posuq now telling us that a praiseworthy working
stiff is one who works absolutely di minimus necessary to prevent being
burden on tzibbur. he then reaps all reward for his learning. but a
yoreih shomayim is one who learns ALL the time, and reliance on tzibbur
means he must share the reward -- thus ALL the s'khar is not "lokh"
and phrase is omitted -- but this nevertheless seems preferred derech --
turning pashtus p'shat on its head. it is useful to contrast R. Chaim with
other peirushim, e.g. toras cohen (not sure who he is/was, but saw it in
the new otzar m'foroshim on t'hilim) who comments a la r. levi yitzchoq
(my translation). "fear of God is realized in two ways: 1. one who sits
and learns torah constantly and of him it is said "ashrei". 2. but greater
than him is "yigioh kapekhoh ki sokheil" who is busy with business and
work, but takes care to be scrupulous of the dictates of the torah, that
there is no suspicion of thievery or of undue advantage..of him is said
"ashrekhoh v'tov lokh".

in general it is fair to say that while R. Chaim viewed limmud torah
as the ultimate ideal which took precedence over all else -- including
other mitzvos which were themselves somehow a just a subset of an all
encompassing limmud torah -- chasidic (and other) tradition treated
talmud torah as a very important mitzvoh, but there were 612 others and
the focus was on toyrohdika living -- whatever you might be doing.

Mechy Frankel
michael.frankel@osd.mil
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

Rabbosay,

for those who open the fridge on Shabbos irrespective of whether the
compressor is energised or not, there should be a parallel when opening
the hot water tap on Shabbos to take a couple of litres of water.

Opening the hot water tap
A) allows cold water into the hot water storage tank
B) with modern tank design this does not mix with the HW in the tank so
there's no bishul of the cold water going in
C) earlier ignition of the burner is as much a consequence of his action
of opening the HW tap as is the earlier switching of the compressor when
opening the fridge door (being muttar bcs it's gerama, we are allowing
the cold air out)
D) once the hot water is in a basin we may add cold water as we please
since it's a keli sheni and water is not kaley bishul

meir

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 07:42:23AM +1000, Meir Rabi wrote:
...
: Opening the hot water tap
: A) allows cold water into the hot water storage tank
: B) with modern tank design this does not mix with the HW in the tank so
: there's no bishul of the cold water going in

I do not believe (B) is correct. AFAIK, Machon Zomet went out of its way
to design a heater that avoids such mixing.

If you didn't have the push of the cold water entering the tank, how would
there be any pressure within the tank to get the water to your tap?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 27th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (413) 403-9905               taking control result in relationship?

In a message dated 5/3/2004 12:10:17 PM EDT, meirabi@optusnet.com.au writes:
> A) allows cold water into the hot water storage tank
> B) with modern tank design this does not mix with the HW in the tank so
> there's no bishul of the cold water going in

please expand - where does the cold water go so as not to contact the
already hot water?

KT
Joel Rich

My comment that "Shirah seems to be rhythm + lyrics" needs some
clarification and further development.

First, it was meant as an example. I don't even have enough to make a
parallel guess as to what zimrah means, nor rinah, nor... I did NOT mean
to imply that poetry should be assur. Rather, just that the music that
is prohibited can't include every form of shirah, and that the elements
of music could be employed to understand these terms.

Second, rhythm includes meter but isn't limited to meter. Even the most
monotone of rap music has more rhythm than a poem does. I should have
broken down rhythm and meter into separate elements.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 27th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 6 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Yesod sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (413) 403-9905               taking control result in relationship?

On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 08:27 -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
> Luckily for the avoidance of circularity, a C place of worship lacks
> kedusha for many reasons. It is certainly true that it has no status
> of a synagogue and therefore does not need a mechitza. It is assur to
> daven there, but not because it lacks a mechitza.

I've been told one can daven in a mosque (never been practical issue),
why would a C shul be different, except for polemical (not criticizing,
just classifying) reasons.

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:18:24PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
: I've been told one can daven in a mosque (never been practical issue),
: why would a C shul be different, except for polemical (not criticizing,
: just classifying) reasons.

Davening in a mosque is a practical issue if the mosque over Ma'aras
haMachpeilah qualifies.

-mi

On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 16:41 +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 12:18:24PM -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
>: I've been told one can daven in a mosque (never been practical issue),
>: why would a C shul be different, except for polemical (not criticizing,
>: just classifying) reasons.

> Davening in a mosque is a practical issue if the mosque over Ma'aras
> haMachpeilah qualifies.

I meant for me in practice, and perhaps being a kohein it practicality
as well, as almost all mosques (except perhaps Har Habayit) where we'd
pray are near kvarot.

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]