Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 059

Monday, July 8 2002

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:38:13 +0100
From: Chana Luntz <Chana@KolSassoon.net>
Re: Hilchos Shabbos and Eruvim

In message <3D217FAD.24818.4C650FA@localhost>, Carl and Adina Sherer 
<sherer@actcom.co.il> writes
>On 1 Jul 2002 at 20:00, Elazar M Teitz wrote:
>>         However, it is more than a Rambam based on a pshat in Yerushalmi
>> that could lead one not to rely on eruvin...
>IIRC Rebbetzin Luntz (are you there?)

Not really (or should I say, not much) if you want me to see something 
better copy it to me privately.

>once posted that her husband's
>community follows the view that the only eruv that is effective is a
>(real) mechitza, and therefore he is not somech on eruvin anywhere.

Err, not exactly - or at least, not completely, he has no problem 
relying on the eruv chatzeros we have now erected in our cul-de sac.

If you look at the relevant si'if in the Shulchan Aruch, you will see 
that there are basically three views expressed. The first two in the 
mechaber (maran) and the last, being the most makil, in the Rema. 
Understandably, Ashkenazim follow the Rema - but generally Sephardim 
don't.  Of the other two, the yesh omrim is more makil than the stam 
S.A, but a lot of Sephardim are not always comfortable relying on a yesh 
omrim (although my husband's posek holds that he may in this case, 
although he himself does not).  Relying on the Rema, however, is another 


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 15:43:44 -0400
From: "Gil Student" <gil_student@hotmail.com>
RE: The MB and psaq

I wrote:
>I find it hard to believe that Shemiras HaLashon and Ahavas
>Chesed were> intended only to be me'orer issues and not pasken halachah. 
>The entire style is one of stating the halachah!

R. Seth Mandel wrote:
>Why should this depend on style?  I noted that from the MB itself it is 
>almost impossible to tell where the CC is adding something and where he is 
>just quoting; the only real way to tell is to look up and learn through all 
>of his sources.
>I would never have argued my point based on my view of the CC's style.  But 
>if the CC himself says what he intends the book for, and I heard the same 
>from R. Mendel Zaks and other g'dolim who were alive when he was, that 
>shoud be enough evidence.

I retract my earlier argument and point out that the author of the
Chofetz Chaim makes it perfectly clear in his introduction to that work
that the book is meant as halacha lema'aseh. Note particularly the end
of the intro where he instructs people to read his words very carefully.
The introduction to Ahavas Chesed does not indicate whether the book is
meant halacha lema'aseh or merely as a "shitah mekubetzes".

Gil Student

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 21:51:50 -0400
From: "Allen Gerstl" <acgerstl@hotmail.com>
MB and Pesaq

On Tuesday July 2, 2002 Mark Feldman wrote:
>Does it make sense to say that the CC is paskening in Biur Halachah on
>345:7 (dealing with eruvin in large cities, which we have been >discussing 
>on Areivim), when he says "kol y'rei shamayim b'vadai yesh >l'hachamir 
>l'atzmo?" Can one determine from the language the CC uses >as to whether he 
>is just summarizing or paskening?

He is not pasking in the above quote.
This is not the language of Pesaq, but the language of chumra.

RYGB's article in the Jewish Observer that he has posted on this site 
discusses chumrot. See Avodah, V.2 No. 79:
"A subcategory of the first and last categories is the advice found often in 
halachic works: "Ba'al Nefesh yachmir" - "a righteous (Rashi Chullin 6a) -or 
pious (Rashi Pesachim 40a) - person shold be stringent."
In the Gemara (ibid., and Nidda 16b and 65b) and Shulchan Aruch (Orach
Chaim 240:9, Yoreh De'ah 116:7 and several other places) they usually give 
this advice in cases where a certain mode of conduct may, technically be 
permissible, but skirts the boundaries of a prohibited act. To engage in 
such behavior may not be legally proscribed, but, nevertheless, suggests a 
proclivity toward indulgence and pleasure not befitting a person at higher 
levels of divine service. (The Ran in Nedarim 91b seems to use "latzeis 
yedei shomayim" in the same way.)[13]

THE MISHNA BERURA EMPLOYS THIS DICTUM in cases of major contention, where a 
significant opinion - perhaps only a few Poskim - tends toward a stringent 
approach although another equally valid opinion - perhaps even most Poskim - 
is inclined to be lenient. IF NEITHER OPINION IS MANIFESTLY DEFINITIVE, then 
the Mishna Berura may give the advice of "Ba'al Nefesh yachmir." This means, 
that the weight of the sources allowing leniency grants that standard 
halachic legitimacy. Nevertheless, the weight of the Poskim on the other 
side of the
equation led the Chofetz Chaim zt"l to conclude that those who are yere'ei 
cheit (fear sin) should incline toward chumra.[14] [ACG:Emphasis added]

(This is similar to Rabbi Shimon Shkop zt"l's (Sha'arei Yosher 1:2)
explanation of safek d'oraysa l'kulla according to the Rambam. Reb Shimon 
interprets this as follows: The Torah distinguishes between a definite 
prohibition, that one may definitely not transgress, and cases of doubt, 
where one is entitled to take chances. If, however, you ultimately discover 
that the case in doubt in fact entailed a definite prohibition, you have 
committed a transgression and teshuva is mandated. Just as yir'as cheit led 
Chazal, from the Rambam's perspective, to mandate chumra in cases of safek 
d'oraysa, so too the Mishna Berura advises a Ba'al Nefesh to be machmir in 
cases he perceives as questionable.)"

I add that, lefi aniyut daati, that the ADVICE directed to a Baal Nefesh is 
personal advice directed to the individual reader and not meant as pesak or 
as a directive to a posek.

The Posek, must analyze the Halacha and reach a definitive conclusion, 
notwithstanding  his personal preference as to his own standard of 
observance and to himself be machmir and to himself avoid the possibilty of 
Halachic error (from the standpoint of absolute truth). In his Pesaq, by 
contrast, he must chance the possibility of such error occuring (when viewed 
from that absolute standpoint of olam haemet).  Lo ba-shamayim he- the posek 
must decide between opposing views and his decision is binding upon the 
shoel in the same way as a beit din decision (when it follows Halachic 
decision-making procedure and is not contrary to a devar mishna or the sugya 
de-alma, see CM 25).

Furthermore, that decision must also be respected even by those who disagree 
and who would rather, as to their own behaviour, be machmir. Such deference 
to the posek and his pesak is required by kavod Ha-Torah which includes 
deference to the laws of decision making and kibud chachamim that requires 
deference to the posek.


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 00:02:50 +0000
From: "Seth Mandel" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
RE: The MB and psaq

R. Moshe Feldman:
<1. Could you give some examples where the CC did not follow the MB's
supposed psakim?

<2. Does it make sense to say that the CC is paskening in Biur Halachah on
345:7 (dealing with eruvin in large cities, which we have been discussing
on Areivim), when he says "kol y'rei shamayim b'vadai yesh l'hachamir
l'atzmo?" Can one determine from the language the CC uses as to whether
he is just summarizing or paskening?>

This is not a matter which I have particular b'qius in (when I was
young I was not aware that people were paskening halokho using the MB:
the g'dolim that I knew then, not only RYBS, but the others also, never
did, and so I never asked them about why they didn't). Nevertheless,
I have come across the following examples:

1) The MB in siman 8 s'q 6 quotes the Mogen Avrohom who brings the
kavvanos ha'Ari about "covering the face with the talis until it reaches
his mouth and throwing the 4 tzitzis to the left." In the new edition of
the MB put out by Aharon Blum, with excerpts from the CI, various charts,
and an index in the back, he also includes drawings on how to ties tzitzis
and the knots of t'fillin, as well as drawings of how to do this. As I
believe was discussed on these lists, the Ari never meant for someone
to wrap himself so as to be blind to be m'qayyem the mitzvah; R. Moshe
Shternbukh makes a comment to the same effect in one of this works. I
have also pointed out that according to the Ari and according to halokho,
it is improper to throw all 4 tzitzis together; R Hayyim Vital explains
how it is done, and it bears no relationship to these drawings. I refused
to believe that the CC knew so little about the Ari that he meant what
his summary seemed to say, and several talmidim from Radin confirmed
that he himself did not wrap himself in the tallis that way.

2) The very MB you deal with. One of the books about the CC published
in the last few years records that he himself carried publicly in large
cities with eruvs. An acquaintance who grew up believing that halokho is
fixed according to the MB and was bothered by the fact that I, who don't
follow the MB, don't carry in a place with an eruv, whereas he does,
came to me gleefully when he saw this note.

3) In siman 282 s'q 1 "b'rikh sh'meh should be said when the aron is
opened..." See Shoroshei Minhag Ash'knaz, vol. 1, p. 164 who quote
R. Hillel Zaks, his grandson, that "the CC conducted himself in many
matters differently than what is written in the MB, whether l'qula or
l'humra" and did not say b'rikh sh'meh.

4) I was not close to said R. Hillel Zaks' father, R. Mendel; I went to
RIETS for the purpose of learning by RYBS. Nevertheless, I was around
him several times, and some of my friends were his talmidim. One of them
told me that over the years R. Mendel zt'l had told them many things in
the name of his father-in-law that differed from what people read as the
"psaq" of the MB.

In response to the second question, I have said in a previous post that
I do not believe that there is any way to tell from the style whether
it is the CC's own view, and I believe that the CC himself would have
told you that is not why he wrote the book.

Let me add something about the discussion in line with what R. Teitz
wrote. I do not consider it degrading the MB to insist that people
take it as the CC wrote he intended it; on the contrary, I consider it
giving respect to someone to read what he writes in an introduction and
understanding his aims in a work. The CC was considered before the war
the greatest tzaddiq in the Litvishe velt, and his words were listened
to with respect. He was not considered a poseq, since he was the head
of a yeshiva and not a shtot rov. Being one of the older members of the
list, I will second what R. Teitz said: when I was young, people in many
yeshivas were learning the MB and not the AhS, and most g'dolim thought
it was appropriate for young bohurim to learn it. However, I think that
there was a disconnect between the older generation (when I was young)
and the younger. The older one, as I have testified, treated the MB
with respect but never dreamed of paskening a shayle out of it (or out
of AhS for that matter): for that you went to the g'moro and rishonim,
the Rambam, the Tur, the BY and SA, and the nos'ei kelim, and in simple
matters you told them what you had heard from g'dolim. However, many of
the young bohurim learning the MB took it to be something that it was
not intended to be.

Seth Mandel

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 10:31:44 -0400
From: "Stein, Aryeh" <AStein@wtplaw.com>
RE: 100 brachos

AStein@wtplaw.com replied:
> See Halichos Shlomo, page 271, n. 93, where a shita is brought down that
> is mesupak whether the day goes after the previous night for purposes
> of 100 brachos.

R' Yitzchok Zirkind responded:
> I didn't see the Halichos Shlomo, but Pashtus Hagemara (Minochos 43b)
> seems to imply otherwsie, for if the night follows the day then the
> problem is not only Shabbos and Yom Tov, but also Erev Shabbos and
> Yom tov.

I apologize for not being clear. RSZA himself holds that the day goes
after the previous night; the shita that was brought in the footnotes
was someone else (I don't recall who right now) who was mesupak whether
this was true or not.

KT and Gut Shabbos

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 13:59:10 +0300
From: "Danny Schoemann" <dannys@atomica.com>
Bentching: HaKedosho vs. HaGedosho

Last night I used a Zemiros-book that has an alternate version (Nusach
Acher in brackets) towards the end of the 3rd brocho in birkas hamozon:
"HaKedosho (N"A HaGedosho)"

Actually, "overflowing" fits in better than "holy" in the context of
"...His full, open, <?> and generous hand".

Anybody have a source for this version?

- Danny.

[My 2cents: If anyone recalls those red and yellow Hagados my generation
used in school, it also had "hagedoshah". -mi]

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 13:24:10 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
gila rina diza et al

I've found several versions of this bracha which differ by which words
are preceded by a vav. Anyone have any insights into our current version
or alternatives (why vav's only on certain words?)

shabbat shalom
Joel RIch

Go to top.


[ 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         ]

< Previous Next >