Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 169

Mon, 17 Aug 2009

• 1. Re: Classical Academia, Deconstruction, and Mesorah (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: RSRH - History in Aggadah is Beyond Critical Examination (Micha Berger)
• 3. on following mesorah (Eli Turkel)
• 4. FW: 'Umeharereho tachtzov nechoshes' - (SBA)
• 5. Re: wedding phrase; why turned up-side down???; yirmiyahu; ch 7; (Simon Montagu)
• 6. judging (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Classical Academia, Deconstruction, and Mesorah (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 8. Re: on following mesorah (David Riceman)
• 9. Re: Fw: zivchei & olah; bideved or lichatchila; re: yhirmiyahu hanavi..... (David Riceman)
• 10. Re: inconceivable-- Ben Sorer uMoreh (Michael Makovi)
• 11. imponderables (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: Not livid with anger (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: judging (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 14. Re: inconceivable-- Ben Sorer uMoreh (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 15. Re: imponderables (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 16. Qaddish and Women (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 07:45:08PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: Granted there are limitations; the academic approach involves a bit of
: hutzpah and is probably impossible to perfectly fulfill, while the
: post-modern approach is egotistically self-centered and ahistorical,
: and makes a mockery of the original text. But I think we can salvage
: them if we use them in moderation. We don't have to slavishly adhere
: to one approach alone.

: I don't claim to have all the answers, or to have all the details
: worked out, but my basic solution is two-fold:
: 1) Whether to use academic historicism, post-modernism, or mesorah,
: depends on our given goal at the given point in time;
: 2) These three choices should be used in tandem, to different degrees,
: in moderation, with common sense.

I'm arguing that only mesorah is mesorah. Historicism, deconstructionism,
may be informative as Mada, but they aren't Torah. Not how biur is to
be done, etc... They have no impact on halakhah whatsoever. Yes, they
each have a role in terms of human knowledge, and if you want to know
just stam to know, kol hakavod.

In the last post I discussed the difference between pesaq as truth-finding
with pesaq as law-construction. In this one I'm emphasizing the idea that
academic study of the sources has no authority WRT law construction and
even is a search for the wrong truth according to those who define pesaq
as truth-finding.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:50:14AM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
:             Rabbi Chaim Eisen, "Maharal's Be'er ha-Golah and His
: Revolution in Aggadic Scholarship", Hakira 4,
: http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%204%20Eisen.pdf - after examing the
: Gaonic/Rishonic understanding of aggadah, Rabbi Eisen shows that de
: Rossi's proposal would meet with Rav Hirsch's approval, as both Rabbi
: Hirsch and de Rossi follow that same Gaonic/Rishonic approach,
: notwithstanding that the Maharal, departing from the Gaonic/Rishonic
: understanding of aggadah, viewed de Rossi's suggestion as heresy.)

I recommend learning Be'eir haGolah. You're deducing a broken view of the
Maharal's position from what you're getting from RCE's article. In fact,
the Maharal is on our list of rishonim and acharonim who tell you that
there is nothing in aggadita that can be assumed to be unequestionably
historical. Or, to put it another way -- that all of aggadita is
metaphoric, some using history for the metaphor, some not. And for that
matter, when anyone reads his own peirush on aggaditos, it's clear.

Be'eir haGolah #4 (p 51), translation R' Mordechai Becher, posted to
v15n9 by RGSeif:
    Now you will see that most of the words of the Sages were in the form
    of metaphor and the analogies of the wise... unless they state that a
    particular story is not a metaphor, it should be assumed that it is a
    metaphor. The matters of great depth were generally expressed by the
    Sages using metaphors, and should be understood as metaphors unless
    they are explicitly indicated to be taken literally. And therefore
    one should not be surprised to find matters in the words of the Sages
    that appear to be illogical and distant from the mind. (Berachot 61a:
    The evil inclination looks like a fly)

IOW, there is little indication that anyone assumed that aggadic stories,
particularly the fantastic ones, are to be taken historically. And,
of course, that's not the grounds of the Maharal's objection to Me'or
Einayim. Rather, it was that de Rossi questioned the Divine origin of
the nimshalim as well.

RSRH's position (tr. R' Pinchos ME Wechsler, RMBreur was the meivi la'or)
was posted to Avodah by RYLevine, IIRC:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaHebrew.pdf>
And a "slightly-condensed translation" by R' Yehoshua Leiman from that
Hebrew to the English:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hirschAgadaEnglish.pdf>
It's less extreme than de Rossi's, but along the same axis.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Micha's recent post on the CI position on not following recently
discovered manuscripts reminds me of an article I recently saw.

It was claimed that many shitot on based on pure sevara and not mesorah.
One case was tefillin of Rabbenu Tam. There is no evidence that he
based himself on some existing pair of tefillin. Rather Rabbenu Tam
came to that conclusion on the order of the parshiyot based on his
learning and so
claimed that Rashi wore incorrect tefillin.
Similarly with his claim that the parshiyot should be perpendicular to
the direction
found in our tefillin.
Similar remarks apply to his changing the nusach of kol nidre and the definition
of sunset.

In a similar case I have been bothered by gemarot which there is a disagreement
with some seemingly factual information. One case was discussed here
refering to the existence of ir hanichadat and ben sorer u moreh
(though it was suggested that
the statement that one sat on the grave is not to be taken literally)
Another case is  when R. Chaninah Sgan HaCohanim states the procedure in
the Temple which he oversaw and others disagree. The only way (IMHO) to disagree
is to claim that the procedure followed in the Temple was wrong!
ie mesorah is wrong based on some drush of a pasuk
Similarly when a tanna sees the curtain of the Temple with blood spots
and others
say the blood on yom kippur did not reach the curtain

BTW as a side remark connected with the parsha it should be noted that when the
Torah says to put the inhabitants of a ir hanichadat to death by sword
the implication
is going to war against the city

-- 
Eli Turkel

-----Original Message-----
From: SBA [mailto:s...@sba2.com] 
Sent: 2009-08-18 00:47
To: 'arei...@lists.aishdas.org'
Subject: 'Umeharereho tachtzov nechoshes' - 

Following the nusach the late original and long-time baal-koreh of our shul
(an Oberlender via Pressburg), when it comes to (Eikev 8:9) 'Umeharereho
tachtzov nechoshes' - it is leined in a special drawn out trop/niggun.

Just wondering if has anyone knows any reason for this or know of another
Shul where it is done so?

SBA

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:55 AM, Harvey Benton <harveyben...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> the following is the text from machon-mamre.....the obvious text of
> the novi is that the voice.....kol sasson, vkol simcha, will be
> ceased, and the land desolate......why start off a wedding (sheva
> brachos) off with a klala like that???

Three teirutzim:

1) Miklal lav shom`im hen: the fact that the navi specifies the
ceasing of these voices as a kelala proves (if we needed proof) that
their presence is a beracha.

2) Tefilla and piyyut routinely use phrases from pesukim with no
concern for the original context. My favourite example: "sham yanuhhu
yegi`e koahh" in RYHL's "Yom Shabbaton". See Job 3:17
http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2703.htm for the pasuk.

3) Jeremiah actually uses the phrase four times, three as kelala and
pur`anut and once as beracha and nehhama. At a wedding we are quoting
the last, 33:11 http://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1133.htm#11 -- note the
"`od yishama" in the previous verse. In fact, I will take this a step
further -- by quoting this verse we are recalling the whole context
from that perek, and linking the joy of the wedding to the hopes of
return from galut. In other words it is the flip side of reciting "Im
eshkahhech yerushalayim" when breaking the kos.

<< In our system,imho  it's expedient to overemphasize the "my hands
are tied" aspect>>

I think it depends very much on the posek.
Two examples
1. Someone who is confined to his home especially shabbat. Should one
find a heter
to allow him to go out eg various electronic devices that rely on heterim.
RSZA was a big backer of Tzomet to find halachic ways to increase the person's
oneg shabbat. R Elyashiv seemed to oppose this on the grounds that why
use a heter
when he can just stay home and daven there. A minyan or social life
and oneg shabbat
are not grounds for seeking heterim

2. One finds a high voltage wire on the street on shabbat. RSZA
paskens to call the
fired department to remove the danger. In other cases he says one does not have
to undergo suffering to prevent someone else doing chillul shabbat when there is
pikuach nefesh.
Others disagree and say that one must stay near the open wire all
shabbat to warn
passers by. Your inconvenience is not an excuse to call the authorities.
Similarly they would require moving out of ones home and going to a neighbor
if that would avoid a situation of calling the authorities for chillul shabbat.
RSZA again disagrees and says one is not required to move out of ones home to
avoid a heter of chillul shabbat.

In both cases RSZA takes account of a person's situation to allow
chillul shabbat
under pikuach nefesh. Others disgree and say that when a way exists to avoid
chillul shabbat even though unpleasant it must be used.
Note RSZA stresses his halacha even though pikuach nefesh on shabbat is
dechuya it holds it is almost like hutra

-- 
Eli Turkel

R' Michael Makovi wrote:

> According to Professor Shnayer Z. Leiman [...very specific
> source supplied there...], if we found Moshe Rabbenu's
> Torah scroll, we WOULD change our Torah scrolls to match
> it. Professor Leiman notes that Rambam himself altered his
> Torah scroll to match the Aleppo Codex, so why wouldn't we
> change our Torah scrolls similarly if we found Moshe's
> scroll?

When I first saw this I was very surprised at first, but then I realized it
makes perfect sense. The procedure by which the Baalei Mesorah produced our
current text was Al Pi Rov, by a majority "vote" from among the reliable
texts which they had available. And if it turned out that the authoritative
text thus produced had he effect of invalidating all the ones that they
started with, that is of no consequence. They used a halachic procedure,
and the halachic results are what matters.

Yet... The very procedure which they used -- Rov -- is only for use in
B'dieved situations. It is a procedure for finding a Truth which is lost in
a mixture of Sfeikos. It would seem to me that by its very nature, this
procedure is a tentative one: We can rely on its results, but only until
and unless a better procedure comes along to provide us with a more
reliable Truth.

So, depending on our confidence level that the newfound scroll really was Moshe Rabenu's, it may very well outweigh the chazakah of the Masoretic Text.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click here for fast, safe, easy money transfers.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsMwHGFxtLgIask0QiWJKWTl0Jw2sYGxqFLgOZRFtTZ1mQZ98gh2Yg/

Eli Turkel wrote:
> It was claimed that many shitot on based on pure sevara and not mesorah.
> One case was tefillin of Rabbenu Tam. There is no evidence that he
> based himself on some existing pair of tefillin. Rather Rabbenu Tam
> came to that conclusion on the order of the parshiyot based on his
> learning and so
> claimed that Rashi wore incorrect tefillin.
>   
I don't know what types of tefillin were used in Germany, but it is 
clear that both types of tefillin were used around the time of R. Tam's 
birth.  See Tshuvos HaRambam ed. Blau #289 (to Hachmei Lunel) and the 
personal experiences he relates there.

David Riceman

Harvey Benton wrote:
>
> --i was taught in cheder that 2 things that are in the torah (besides 
> the episode of the meraglim) are actually bidieved in Hashem's eyes....
> 1. having a melech over yisrael (like the goyim do)...since in 
> reality, hashem is the only king we have..
> 2. (see reference below from yhirmiyahu) regarding the avodah of the 
> korbanos....rambam says one thing (iirc, that it was a concession to 
> the yidden, in their desire to copy the ways of the goyim), and the 
> ramban, who says that no, there are some spiritual benefits to having 
> the korbanos.....
> t
>
Is this meant to be an exclusive list? What about yefas toar?

David Riceman

> Two laws that are currently ignored come to mind
>
> Burial of suicide - we consider all of them now as not having da'as
>
> No hespedim on certain days
> Except maybe some Yekkes and our own REMT, the no hesped rule is almost
> always waved
>
> RRW

I'd add saving a nicht Jude on yom ha-shevi'i. Rabbi Aharon
Lichtenstein and Rabbi Yehuda Amital posed the following question:
you're on a desert island, and so mishum eiva doesn't apply. What do
you do? Honestly, how many of us would follow what the halakhah says
in this case? (Rabbi Dr. David Berger, in "Egalitarian Ethos", says
that this is the *one* halakhah that he says *completely* frum and
pious Jews have told him that they'll ignore the explicit halakhah and
violate it b'meizid if they have to.)

By the way, Rabbi Lichtenstein said he'd save the nicht jude and do
teshuva (teshuva, since the formal law is still on the books and
binding), while Rabbi Amital said he'd save the nicht jude and *not*
do teshuva, since it was G-d's will to save the nicht jude (following
Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner that natural law can override d'oraita
formal law; Rabbi Glasner's own example is choosing between treif meat
and human flesh, or choosing to go naked or wear clothing of the
opposite sex - he says to choose treif and opposite-sex clothing, even
though the formal law would say to go naked and eat human flesh).
Rabbi David Bigman of Maale Gilboa, in relating this story, said, "I
wouldn't violate Shabbat to save him...[audible pause]...I'd find a
heter."

Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm (http://www.forward.com/articles/11308) and
Professor Marc Shapiro (http://www.lukeford.net/blog/?p=2595) both
cite this case of the nicht jude on yom ha-shevi'i as an example of
how halakhah can evolve over time, with the law on the books remaining
technically unchanged, even as its actual application and underlying
ethos radically reverses. Rabbi Dr. Immanuel Jakobovits ("A Modern
Blood Libel ? L'Affaire Shahak", Tradition, 8:2 1966, URL below)
explains "mishum darkei shalom" in a manner extremely similar to how
Rabbi Dr. Eliezer Berkovits does, viz. that the laws of the Torah all
exist for the sake of peace, and that the Torah itself avers that the
formal law, however logical in itself, must be put aside if it
violates morality. (I covered up R' Jakobovits's name and asked my
ra"m to read the article and guess its author, and he was sure it was
R' Berkovits.)

URL for R' Jakobovits:
http://www.edah.org/backend/coldfusion/search/d
ocument.cfm?title=A%20Modern%20Blood%20Libel&;hyperlink=jakobovits1%
2Ehtml&type=Document&category=Jews%20and%20Gentiles%3A%20%93Other%9
4%20in%20Modern%20Orthodox%20Thought&authortitle=Rabbi&firstname=Im
manuel&lastname=Jakobavits&pubsource=Tradition%2C%208%3A2%201966&am
p;authorid=433

Michael Makovi

Just read R. Reisman's book Pathways of the Prophets (has nothing to
do with prophets!)
He has a section called imponderables

Some I disagreed with and some I leave to the readers

1. He quotes MB 638-24 that one can write verses (not in whole Torah)
only for education
He then notes that the universal minhag is to quote verses on succah
decorations.
I would add that this is also true of most wedding invitations (just
received a Belz one
with a pasuk)

I would guess that since this is universal MB is not accepted - any ideas?

2. If one holds like Rabbenu Tam how can one make early shabbat which
would be before plag hamincha of R. Tam (ie 75 minutes before shkia
of R. Tam).
He tries to answer that even according to R. Tam plag hamincha is before
physical sunset
sounds farfetched to me

3. Gemara Beitzah 7a says chickens dont lay eggs at night
why not use that to determine like Gra or Rabbenu Tam

4. Why does the chazzan turn to the ark when saying Gadlu?

5. He claims that one can't eat Giraffe because of Chaye Odam and CI
that one needs a mesorah. However our own Ari Zivotofsky  points out
that many including Edah Hacharedit dont accept this psak of CI
In fact the OU gives a hechsher on buffalo meat

6. Parshat Tzav has 97 verses not 96 as all chumashim claim
parshat pekudei has no siman at the end

7. chazal Sotah 11b say that King David was a descendant of Miriam and
Caleb. However in megillat Rut, Calev isnt listed
(he quotes gemara that Caleb ben Yefune is the same as Caleb ben Chetzron
who had a brother Ram who is listed in Rut.

However the equivalebce of Caleb ben Yefune with Caleb ben Chetzron is very
unlikely as already the Gra and many others point out

8. Michtav Mi Eliyahu claims that R. Tam changed the order of the parshiyot
in the tefillin. He says he could do this since there was no explicit mesorah
as to the order (of course there was a practical mesorah)

This seems to go against the famur Beis Halevi and RYBS with regard to techelet
that one cant change or reestablish a mesorah (not) based on practice.

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 02:50:10PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: My impression is that the Rambam removes anger from his normal scheme of 
: the golden mean because of "kol hako'es k'ilu oved avoda zara"...

Perhaps that's why the Rambam includes it in his list. But it's not
unique, he has 2 other exceptions: anavah (2:5) because Moshe is
"anav me'od"; ka'as (2:6), because "kol hako'eis", shetiqah (2:8) --
"veqol kesil berov devarim", and "siyag lechokhmah", etc...

Given the list of three, so resembling Pirqei Avos, I'm thinking there
is significance to the set as a set.

: >1- Is the yeitzer hatov defined as responding with thought, or as
: >responding with the right middos?

: Here is where it gets complicated, since you are trying to harmonize 
: different opinions in mussar.  For the Rambam the yetzer hara is the ego 
: (see MN I:2).

That wasn't really my instent. I was trying to spell out two differen
chiluqim: (1) an ideal of thought vs an ideal of having the right middos,
and (2) an ideal of the "right amount" WRT every middah vs declaring
ka'as and some other middos as being exceptions where the "right amount"
is zero.

(This then had a tangent about the OTz comparing "right amount" to a
recipe -- much more of some things than others, vs the Rambam's lifting
Aristo's notion about middles. More about that when I get to RDSchatz's
article. Speaking of whom -- I know him from the same aforementioned
shtiebl!)

My real problem is that I have a hard time accepting the usability of the
YHT = seichel approach. Where are ahavah, yir'ah and bitachon, anavah,
rachamim, chemlah, etc...? It is better not to develop the "opposing"
middah and rather be more calculating? Where's the passion?

I once argued that Avraham Avinu's "ha'af tispeh tzadiq im rasha" --
throwing out a rhetorical question in complaint to the TBSO (about Sedom
et al) was not only justifiable anger, but actually *laudible* anger at
the RBSO! (But recall that much of my position on how to respond to
tragedy was formed while in aveilus for a daughter, so some of it may
be self-justification.) A snippet from
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/10/angry-at-g-d.shtml>:

    It would seem that there is an appropriate time for anger. When
    someone hears of something that seems like a great wrong, it would
    be insensitive of him not to respond with outrage. Although it's
    interesting to note that in both examples, the injustice would have
    been aimed at a third party. There is no personal motive in either
    case. And Hashem even lauds examples of where that anger is directed
    at Him!

    Anger is part of any relationship. We are called into partnership
    with Him in finishing His creation -- of the world, of ourselves,
    even of expounding the Torah. Can a human being participate in a
    successful partnership without ever feeling angry at their partner?
    Marriages are not built on avoiding fighting, but on learning how
    and when to fight productively.

BTW, WRT anger as AZ because it's about one's own will being thwarted
in contrast to accepting His...

What does "asei Retzono kirtzonkha" say about that? What if (in another,
hypothetical, situation) I had been angry because His Will was thwarted?
Is such anger impossible? And if possible, would you say it's negative
and ke'ilu oveid AZ?

:>More starkly contrasting is REED's model of nequdas habechirah, in which
:>he lauds moving the nequdah over to the point where good deeds need not
:>require conscious thought. Better to not need seikhel to come to the
:>right choice, be such that it happens preconsciously!

: Now you're mixing apples with oranges.  REED, as far as I recall, never 
: mentions the nekudas habehira in the context of emotions.

The whole bechirah-point thing is a starker contrast to identifying the
yeitzer hatov with seikhel than identifying it with positive middos.
Because REED is saying the ideal is to do good without needing to think
about it. And to constantly be including more and more good in that
territory. The nequdat habechirah is in opposition to the Rambam's
ideal of acting through thought, and seems to be in opposition to the
opening paragraphs of Igeres haMussar (but I would bet REED understood
the igeres accordingly and was not rejecting his understanding of a
central pillar of his own tenu'ah).

...
: >And yet, RYS also writes of tiqun hamiddah, changing the middah
: >(typically through hergeil) into something positive.

: There's a machlokes between Aristotle and Hume about whether the 
: intellect controls the emotion, or visa versa.  I find RYS's writing 
: provocative, but too 19th-century-Germanic-flowery to think I understand 
: it, but I do think I understand the writings of his student, the Alter 
: from Kelm.  For him the point of mussar is to change the Humesean human 
: ("ayir pere adam yulad") into an Aristotelian human.

Personal introspection leads me to side with Hume. That's why I coined
the aphorism in this post's subject line. I also think Riha"l would
agree, had he addressed the question. He believes that philosophy can
prove anything, which is why any sound argument by one philosopher is
bound to be conflicted by antoher sound argument presented by another
(Kuzari 1:1). We accept the postulates and arguments we are predisposed
to accept, and so reason follows, not leads.

I did not hand-select that quote. I was about to replace the signature
on with the one referred previous paragraph. But I didn't have to -- der
Herrgolt wurfelt mit Krumme Wurfel (G-d plays dice with loaded dice; in
contrast to Einstein's inability to accept QM and it's non-deterministic
features on the grounds that "der Herrgolt wurfelt nicht -- G-d does
NOT play dice").

To touch on RRW's point on this thread:
And while Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and its predecessor Rational
Emotive Therapy both link emotion to a preceding thought, AFAIK, they
do not begin the cycle at thought. Rather, they identify thought as an
easier place at which to interrupt the cycle. But they do work on behavior
(hergel) as well.

I think CBT and Tenu'as haMussar have another of methodological elements
in common. So did RYBS at one point in his life, although the paper he
sent me once was written many years ago.

While mentioning RET and Albert Ellis, he famously had clients walk a
banana through Times Square, as a way of breaking them about concerns
about how they are perceived. Novhardok would be proud.

...
:>And then I suggested a possible combination, that the chassid is bending
:>over backward because he's the one working to fix the middah, training
:>it like a vine on a trellis (to borrow a mashal from the Rambam).

: The problem with that is that even a tzaddik does that when he has a 
: problem.  The answer I once gave, in an unpublished essay, is that a 
: hassid goes out of his way to combat potential genetic and environmental 
: influences, while a tzaddik does not.

IOW, that a chassid is predisposed to be in fix-it mode, and therefore
tending toward one qatzeh? (Rephrasing to check: Did I understand you
correctly?)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RET
> 1. Someone who is confined to his home especially shabbat. Should
> one find a heter to allow him to go out eg various electronic devices
> that rely on heterim. RSZA was a big backer of Tzomet to find halachic
> ways to increase the person's oneg shabbat. R Elyashiv seemed to oppose
> this on the grounds that why use a heter when he can just stay home and
> daven there. A minyan or social life and oneg shabbat are not grounds
> for seeking heterim

Tangent:
RCA published a pamphlet on the manhattan eruv from R MM Kasher et
al. (Circa 1985)

Two points were made that iirc were not unconnected within the pamphlet
but I connected them..

1 a woman shut-in by her babies on shabbos is considered a case of
sha'as Hadechak
2 relying on that old eruv was permitted by some posqim ONLY bishas
hadechak

Synthesis:
Shut-ins COULD rely on that eruv, but people taking a Tallis or siddur
to shul could not.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

This actually happened to a chaver of mine "Avi"

It's YT in Wash Heights.

A Black Man approaches Avi

Please!  I need money to feed my baby milk!

Avi silently procrasinates

BM follows up: I'm Jewish from Israel and repeats his request in Modern
Hebrew!

What would YOU do?
What does the halachah say?

(Note: handing him money is probably only a direct violation of
muktze. Mesayei'a lidvar aveira?)

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RET:
> 4. Why does the chazzan turn to the ark when saying Gadlu?

FWIW:
Breuer's doesn't.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

DMS:
> allowing women to say kaddish  
> (either by themselves, as permitted by RYBS, or with a man, as  
> permitted by RYE Henkin), etc - but it is still a very limited amount.

I am researching "qaddish" stuff for a series of postings and I'm looking
for sources:

Where are these 2 opnions found?

My LOR is talmid of RHS and afaik permits women ONLY along with men.

And His predecessor was Talmid of RYDS.

Any more info is helpful

Thanx!
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 169
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."