Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 005

Friday, September 24 2004

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:13:38 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: shltn


At 10:05 AM 9/22/2004, [RDB] wrote:
>Similarly, sholtan is one who exercises power, a king,a ruler such as
>the ruler our neighbors call a Sultan.
...
>Thus, in Hebrew as she is spoke, it is not the Sultan or ruler who is
>l'fanekha. It is the power of rule that God has, the "oz b'yad'kha and
>g'vura etc., etc.

But what bothers me is why the "lefanecha". Why not "she'atah shalit?"

YGB 


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:08:44 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Chazal - as seen by rishonim and achronim


On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 02:28:15PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Ba'al HaTurim(Bereishis 21:10): Since Sarah drove Hagar from her house she
: was punished that her descendants would be enslaved and sent into exile.

It's interesting that the 400 years start from Yitzchaq's birth, which
is also when Hagar's oppression began.

-mi


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:03:39 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Subject:
mamzer - hetair for Conservative wedding


Concerning the hetair of mamzerus of the Igros Moshe (EH 4:13) for one
whose parents had a Conservative or Reform marriage - does anyone know
other poskim who agreed with the hetair?

Daniel Eidensohn


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Non-Nitbal Dishes on Shabbos


Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Someone asked on another forum: Are dishes that didn't go to the miqvah
> yet muqtzah?

> I thought of them as keilim shemilakhtam le'issur, as the appropriate
> melakhah for such dishes in bringing them to the miqvah.

Quick impression ...which in my case is usually unreliable but that has
never stopped me before. :)

I don't think you can characterize their Melachtan as that of Issur.
They are Kelim that have not gone through the Halachic requirement of
Tevillah and therefore not usable. But they are never-the-less Kelim She
Melachtan L'Heter. Perhaps there is a Makor to say that they were Huktzeh
B'yadaim by default, I don't know. But In any case the Issur to use them
does not make the food cooked in them B'Dieved or served on them Assur to
eat. It is also not a case of Makeh V'Patesh or Boneh (for those who hold
that of Binyan by Kelim) since the Tikun is ritualistic and not actual.

HM


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:43:19 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Public expression by women


On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:42:01 -0400 I replied to RNCL:
:: But what is her role? And where is it defined within yehadus?

: That is the question. Not "How do we adjust the role to fit the new
: lifestyle?" The question being addressed by the O feminist is premature.

Rn Chana,

Just wondering, would you engage in "halachic hermeneutics", as RYBS calls
it, to deduce statements about aggadic principles about roles and values?

It would seem from the difference in number of rituals and their
imposition at particular times that there is a role implication there,
IMHO.

It reminds me of a statement Dear Abby (Jeanne Phillips) made once
about the relationship between romance and eroticism. In the female
mind, romance is a means to feeling physical desire. In the male mind,
the physical expression causes romance.

There is a ma'aseh-machshavah cycle that feeds back on itself. An act
is the expression of an attitude which in turn causes a reinforcement
and increase in that attitude which needs greater expression.

Men are told far more often: now is the time to do X. (1) The focus is
on the act->attitude part of the cycle. Thus the similarlity to Dear
Abby's claim. (2) Man is therefore being told when to feel something.
Women are given more reign to express what is felt rather than being
told what to feel.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:14:11 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: additions for Aseres Yemei Teshuva


On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 03:54:04PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: Specifically why, in Zochreinu, we ask only for chayim, for ourselves.

: In mi chamocha, we ask again only for chayim, for all creations, and
: with the added "berachamim", while in uchesov, we ask for chayim tovim,
: but only for Jews.

: Finally in besefer, we ask for a long string of requests, for ourselves
: primarily and only afterwards for "kol amcha beis Yisrael"

If I may ask a similar question from a different angle.

Who is the "we" in "Zochreinu"? The people in the minyan, and those
close to them? Usually the "we" in tefillah is kelal Yisrael, but then
why the specificity of kol benei berisekha in "Ukhsov lechaim tovim"?
And in any case the scope is something altogether different, as RCG asks.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Peter Marshall


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:26:09 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: mamzer - hetair for Conservative wedding


At 04:03 PM 9/22/2004, [RDE] wrote:
>Concerning the hetair of mamzerus of the Igros Moshe (EH 4:13) for one
>whose parents had a Conservative or Reform marriage - does anyone know
>other poskim who agreed with the hetair?

TE.

GCT,
YGB 


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:48:55 +1200
From: jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Subject:
Re: minhagim


> 2- "" . is 13 middot
> deleted? can it be said with trope without a minyan? [ i had seen that
> brought down somewhere but cant find it}

I have quoted on this list before from my g-grandfather R. Avraham Shalom
Shaki z"l's book. "Heichal AVodat Hashem"

Here's what he summarises regarding slichot without a minyan.

Maran: not without a minyan 'derech baksha v'rachamim', but only 'derech kria'
Bahat, Shataz, Kaf HaChayim: = 'derech niggun b'ta'amim'
Kaf HaChayim: no need to finish the last pasuk when after amidah
KSA and other acronyms: shouldn't be said at all
Kaf HaChayim: need to finish pasuk during slichot
Kaf HaChayim b'shem HaArizal: chilufe Alef-Tav, Bet-Shin for shem hashem
'M-Tz-P-Tz'
Maharitz - minhag teman follows Ari z"l
R OY - no need to finish pasuk.

He states that Sefardi practice is to do slichot b'tzibbur even without
a minyan (some skip the Aramaic parts, some skip 13 Middot, others do
t'amim and others do chilfe shemot), whereas Ashkenazi custom is that
some individuals do slichot b'yachid (he brings the Rama who says that
slichot is only b'minyan)

Gmar Chatima Tova
Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:47:40 -0700
From: "Newman,Saul Z" <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org>
Subject:
minhagim


1- it actually is a MB in siman 581 i believe, he says to read 3 psukin
of asherei and then kaddish

3- maybe this is a shtiebel davening vs big-shul-chazzan thing, as i
have only seen in in chssidishe stiebel


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Public expression by women


Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> It would seem from the difference in number of rituals (for men and
> women)and their imposition at particular times that there is a role
> implication there, IMHO.

> It reminds me of a statement Dear Abby (Jeanne Phillips) made once
> about the relationship between romance and eroticism. In the female
> mind, romance is a means to feeling physical desire. In the male mind,
> the physical expression causes romance.

> There is a ma'aseh-machshavah cycle that feeds back on itself...
> Women are given more rein to express what is felt rather than
> being told what to feel.

...Just like to chime in here.

Could it be that this is what is meant by Binah Yeseirah? 

The fact is just as you and "Dear Abby" stated it. To put it in
even simpler terms, men objectify. It is their nature and can best
be understood in terms of a man's sexual nature focusing on an act.
Women DO NOT objectify. This too is best understood in a woman's sexual
nature focusing on romance... a mental or even spiritual level of human
activity. It seems to me that a woman's natural state is on a higher
level of awareness... as the example of focusing on the act for men
versus focusing on the feeling for women... shows.

To objectify and focus on an act is more base and physical. To focus
on feeling is a higher level of spirituality which is beyond the mere
physical focus of an act. This is why men need more Mitzvos . They need
to objectify observance. Women do not need it as much because their
natural mindset is well beyond the need to objectify.

The natural condition of women is Binah Yeseirah.

No?

HM


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 09:43:39 +0200
From: Minden <phminden@arcor.de>
Subject:
Re: linguistic norm


> This addition of vowels occurred some 800 years ago, affected the  
> categorization of the sh'vaim, and made pronunciaton obey grammatical  
> rules.

> The Kimchi family were talmidei chakhamim. The Radak's works were based  
> completely on the Tanakh. Were they ba'alei mesorah?  Or weren't they?  
...
> If we say that Kimchis were grammarians, then perhaps we should attempt  
> to return to the world of seven vowels and more sh'vaim nachim.

Indeed, does anyone of the esteemed and learned readers recall poskim
or even "plain grammarians" inside tradition who did not accept the
change during the last 800 years, or tried to reverse it? (This is not
a rhethorical question.)

Thankful for any hints,
a good chsimetouve
Eliezer Lipman Phillip Minden
[ 8~)


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:17:53 +0200
From: "D&E-H Bannett" <dbnet@zahav.net.il>
Subject:
Re: shltn


On the word sholtan, R' Micha commented:<<And if the first qamatz were
gadol, it would be "shale..." with the shin and lamed in different
syllables, ie the shva would be na. The closed syllable "shol", with a
sheva nach under the lamed requires the qamatz be qatan.>>

We both agree that the kamatz is katan and the sh'va is nach. Your
statement above is also true. If the kamatz were gadol and the sh'va na'
,the word would be shal'tan. But what have you proved? Maybe we're both
wrong and the word is shal'tan.

If you accept the usual taditional interpretation of m'tagim. look in
your chumash at the words: Tzar'fat, As'nat, Tzaf'nat Pa'neach and also
at Botzra, Orpah (pardon me, that's in Ruth, not Breishit) .

Have you visited Av'dat in the Negev? Or been to Tzar'fat or Tzorpat
lately?

David


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:15:44 -0400
From: "H G Schild" <hgschild@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Yizkor and Mourning


After seeing the Rabbi Riskin mailing below, I recall my question here
a few years ago that remains unanswered and still wonder where else /
where first this concept is discussed. Any where to look?

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin's Shabbat Shalom Parsha Column
> On Yom Kippur each of us descend into the "waters of death". We wear
> the white reminiscent of shrouds, we remove ourselves from all physical
> necessities and pleasures such as food, drink, and sex, and we wear non
> leather shoes of the mourner. For whom are we mourning? We are mourning
> for ourselves who have died because of our sins.

Volume 10 : Number 008
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:45:22 -0400
Subject: Yizkor and Chasam Sofer

A Rabbi at my shul got up before Yizkor and stated that the CHASAM
SOFER says that we also say Yizkor for that "part of our own neshama
that already lived and is no longer in our guf".... Reference inside
please? or original source?

HG Schild


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 03:34:36 -0400
From: "MYG" <mslatfatf@access4less.net>
Subject:
Re: Torah as Allegory


> R' David Riceman writes:
>> I am puzzled, however, why you need any arguments at all? Why not say

>> "What Hazal said is good enough for me," and avoid any argument 
>> rather than adopt one you suspect of being erronous?

I (MYG) answer:
> That is a very good question. The answer is, that when I was young 
> what Chazal said was not good enough for me. After reading R' AM's 
> seforim, I was able to rely on Chazal, to the degree that I am now not
> bothered by the questions on R' AM's proofs.

To which RDR answers:
> I would like to know whether you knew that RAM's arguments were
> tendentious in your youth. I suspect that you did, since your
> characterization of his disciples is precisely that they suspect his
> arguments are tendentious but accept them nonetheless.

I suspect that I have still not made my position clear. I'll try to
word it a bit differently: If, in my youth, I would have known all the
arguments against RAMM as I know them now, my emunah would have suffered
greatly. However, since I didn't, my emunah had a chance to entrench
itself in my psyche, and grew into an existence of its own, independent
of intellectual support. I suspect that many of RAM's disciples have
gone through a similar process, and that is what I meant when I wrote the
following (in my first post): "How do we understand RAMM's following in
the face of much evidence to the contrary? I would suggest that R' Avigdor
Miller's followers have the following common denomenator: He got there
first. Whether in one's teenage years, or later on in life, RAMM took
hold because there was no other mehalech available that answered all the
questions in a nonapologetic, vigorous way. When later on, one of these
followers of RAMM may come upon one of the other mehalchim out there,
(such as RNS's, for example) it is thoroughly vetted by the concepts
already accepted as truth that are established in his mind. It seems,
that every other mehalech would not be accepted by an adherant of RAMM,
because the fundamentals of every other mehalech are at odds with RAMM's
fundamentals. To one who already accepted RAMM as true, there would be an
enormous amount of cognitive dissonance produced, trying, for example, to
accept any sort of evolutionary process, or any redating of the universe."

RDR continued:
> If I am right then you are addressing a different problem than the one
> discussed on our list. The people who are bothered here are people who
> take both science and Hazal seriously, and are unwilling to countenance
> a contradiction between them.

> If you were willing to accept arguments you recognized as tendentious
> then you could not have taken science very seriously even in your youth.

I take science seriously. I am also not bothered by the apparent
contradictions between them. I'll repeat - if RNS's mehalech and RAMM
were both presented to me at the same time I very likely would have
rejected RAM's mehalech. It's just that at this point in my life, I am
not bothered by the questions that bother RNS - who is (in your words)
"unwilling to countenance a contradiction" between science and Chazal.

G'mar chasima tova,
Moshe Yehuda Gluck
mailto:mslatfatf@access4less.net
www.esefer.blogspot.com


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:48:34 -0400
From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
Subject:
Re: Torah as Allegory


From: "MYG" <mslatfatf@access4less.net>
> See Yerushalmi ad. loc., cited l'halacha in Rabbi Kaplan's "B'Ikvuth
> HaYirah" pp 27-28.

>  I'm afraid I don't have "B'Ikvuth HaYirah".

Here's my translation of the relevant passage:

"The Yerushalmi explains that the halacha does not follow the opinion
that it is prohibited to expound the act of creation publicly. Indeed,
this mishna follows the opinion of R. Akiva, and R. Ishmael disagrees with
him and permits it, and the halacha follows R. Ishmael in this matter,
since R. Judah b. Pazi acted on his opinion and expounded it publicly.
This is explicit there."

David Riceman


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:21:52 +0200 (IST)
From: Efraim Yawitz <fyawitz@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Non-literal explanations/ Gan Eden


On Wed, 22 Sep 2004, [Micha] wrote:
> R' Eliezer (Dr. Leon) Ehrenpreis opined that the dating issue can be
> explained with the reduction of a physical constant called alpha (now
> roughly equal to 137, possibly exactly, no units of measure) that relates
> the speed of light, the relative strength of gravity to the other forces
> of nature, and quantum uncertainty.

This all sounds very interesting (even if abstruse). I tried to look
up Dr. Ehrenpreis on the Web; is he the professor of math at Temple?
Does anyone have any links to the material itself in writing or online?

These type of theories (changes in universal constants or laws) seem
to be a third alternative other than the 'literal' and 'allegorical',
and seem to have something of the advantages of both, i.e., faithfulness
to the text and also compatibility with science. However, they do seem
to have a bit of the flavor of the 'old-appeaing universe' to them,
since they make empirical investigation of the past somewhat difficult
if not impossible, and make the Torah (in this area) unfalsifiable.
They do not have the problem of making G-d into a liar ch"v like that
approach does, though. Am I correct about this?

Ephraim


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:18:10 -0400
From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
Subject:
RE: Torah as allegory


> I personally am using a definition of "mesorah" that would include any
> conclusion reachable from within seichel applied to mesoretic data and
> a priori postulates as being a possible shitah. Not just the material
> transmitted itself. This is both narrower in some ways and wider in
> others than what I believe is the Rambam's position.

> I would only rule out synthetic arguments from other disciplines, as
> that would mean that the other discipline, not Torah, is being treated
> as primary.

This distinction between synthetic arguments from other disciplines,
as being distinct from sechel, is one that I think is foreign to the
rambam - who uses aristotelian physics in the mishne torah and discusses
them as ma'ase breshit. If you accept human reason as determininig what
conclusions are reachable within the mesora, then, according to the
rambam, you would have to include conclusions reachable by "synthetic
arguments" - unless you have proof that there is such a distinction

> You did the same thing to the Rambam's statement in the Moreh about
> Aristo's argument for an eternal begining-less universe last 
> time around  this discussion.

We need to be careful in distinguishing what we would like the rambam and
RYHL to say - and what they actually say. The rambam is clear that he
could reinterprete - although aristotelian eternity has other problems,
simple pshat in tanach is not one of them, and therefore I did do the
same thing - I cited what the rambam said...

Similarly, while RYHL has problems with the reliability of philosophical
speculation, he relies on historical traditions. WHen asked about
competing traditions, he says that ther are problematic - but also says
that if there was a reliable tradition contradicting pshat in torah, he
would have to give another answer. Whether or not he personally believed
that there couldn't be a reliable tradition that contradicted the torah,
he states that the possibility of reinterrpetation exists if such a
tradition were to be found.

Meir SHinnar 


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:43:36 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Torah as allegory


On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 01:18:10PM -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
:> I personally am using a definition of "mesorah" that would include any
:> conclusion reachable from within seichel applied to mesoretic data and
:> a priori postulates as being a possible shitah. Not just the material
:> transmitted itself. This is both narrower in some ways and wider in
:> others than what I believe is the Rambam's position.

:> I would only rule out synthetic arguments from other disciplines, as
:> that would mean that the other discipline, not Torah, is being treated
:> as primary.

: This distinction between synthetic arguments from other disciplines,
: as being distinct from sechel, is one that I think is foreign to the
: rambam...

Of course, that's why I distinguish my position from any claims that
it's the Rambam's. I don't see what you're adding to the last sentence
of the first of my quoted paragraphs.

:> You did the same thing to the Rambam's statement in the Moreh about
:> Aristo's argument for an eternal begining-less universe last 
:> time around  this discussion.

: We need to be careful in distinguishing what we would like the rambam and
: RYHL to say - and what they actually say. The rambam is clear that he
: could reinterprete - although aristotelian eternity has other problems,
: simple pshat in tanach is not one of them, and therefore I did do the
: same thing - I cited what the rambam said...

We've debated this Rambam, and I have little wish to reiterate. The
Moreh gives two criteria, not one. The argument has to be muchrach AND
it can not run against the words of "our sages and prophets".

At least give me the satisfaction of acknowledging that too me it's far
from "clea". (Why bother discussing things if the other participant doesn't
even remember that other opinions were presented. It's frustrating.)

: Similarly, while RYHL has problems with the reliability of philosophical
: speculation, he relies on historical traditions. WHen asked about
: competing traditions, he says that ther are problematic - but also says
: that if there was a reliable tradition contradicting pshat in torah, he
: would have to give another answer....

I did not find this last clause (from after the hyphen) in the Kuzari.
What he does say is (1:61):
> My belief would be undermined if this information came from a distinctly
> defined religion or a book that is commonly agreed to contain no
> chronological distortions. But it is not the case with India.

Not reinterpret, reject the entire concept of the power of mesorah,
and have to question our mesorah and Torah as a consequence!

It's a paradox for which his faith system has no room!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 07:53:37 -0400
From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
Subject:
Re: Balancing Machshavah Amuqah and Emunah Perhutah


From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> 4- The Brisker approach is to avoid the whole subject. As Rav Moshe
> Feinstein put it, it's a hashkafah of not studying hashkafah.

Where did Rabbi Feinstein say this?

David Riceman


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:24:17 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject:
Al Naharot Bavel


Any sources as to the seemingly common minhag of not saying it before
bentching during the week?

GCT
Joel Rich


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 21:04:06 +0200
From: Saul Mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
Re:Balancing Machshavah Amuqah and Emunah Perhutah


RMB wrote:
>4- The Brisker approach is to avoid the whole subject. As Rav Moshe
>Feinstein put it, it's a hashkafah of not studying hashkafah. It differs
>from Rav Nachman's position not so much in that they feel it's wrong,
>but that it's pointless. The ikkar is learning halakhah and man's duty
>in this world.
<snip>
>The problem with positions 3 and 4 is that it does not have the support
>of either the scholastic rishonim (eg: Rav Saadia Ga'on, the Rambam,
>R' Albo), the antischolastic rishonim (eg: R' Yehudah haLevi), the
>qabbalistically inclined (eg: the Ramban), nor the Ramchal, Besh"t,
>the Gra, R' Chaim Vilozhiner...

I wonder in what "camp" RMB would put Rashi.

In the framework of RMB's categories above, Rashi is neither scholastic
nor anti-scholastic; he is non-scholastic. Similarly, he is not
qabbalistic, like the Ramban, nor anti-qabbalistic, like the Rambam; he
is non-qabbalistic. AFAIK, we have not only no significant philosophic
works from this extremely central figure in the mesorah, but virtually no
philosophic passages at all in his volumnious writings. Although this is
speculation, in light of Rashi's total silence on the subject, the strong
impression one gets is that Rashi had no strong feelings one way or the
other about the burning philosophical questions to which other rishonim
devoted much of their lives studying and analysing. In my mind's ear,
I can hear Rashi saying "Don't bother me with all that stuff; I have
more important subjects to deal with: How does Hashem relate to man,
and to klal Yisrael?"

Thus it seems reasonable to posit that he could serve as a model for
what is termed above the Brisker approach.

Comments?

GCT.
Saul Mashbaum


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:52:23 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Balancing Machshavah Amuqah and Emunah Perhutah


On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 09:04:06PM +0200, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
: I wonder in what "camp" RMB would put Rashi.
...
: In the framework of RMB's categories above, Rashi is neither scholastic
: nor anti-scholastic; he is non-scholastic...

Is this true, or a conclusion reached because he is best known for being
a commentary that focuss on peshat local to the text before one? IOW,
was he unconcerned with metaphysics, or was he simply more concerned about
the general inability to get basic peshat in our basic sifrei Qodesh?

That's the problem with arguing from silence. OTOH, we don't find a
rishon who says "stick to halakhah and don't worry about these things".
Which we can find from the 19th cent onward.

In haOrah, which is mostly pisqei halakhah, Rashi has a peirush on the
siddur which is not his normal peshat style. Moreso, it would seem from a
comparison of haOrah to Siddur Rashi and Machzor Vitri that Rashi tuned
nusach to fit these kavanos!

Rashi was also a paytan.

I credited this view of avoiding hashkafah (a quote vaguely along the
lines of: our hashkafah is to not have a hashkafah) to RMF, and RDR
asked where I saw it. What brought it to mind was that I heard it from
RD Eliezer Ehrenpreis, who was a talmid of RMF. (RDEE decided to become
frum. So, he walked into MTJ to get it from the authority. Rav Moshe
taught him. 5 years later, he had semichah.)

Ironically, it's also the conclusion of Nefesh haChaim cheileq 4. That
knowing the din is knowing the mind of G-d is the key to self perfection
is man's tachlis.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:13:19 -0400
From: Shaya Potter <spotter@yucs.org>
Subject:
Re: Al Naharot Bavel


On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 14:24 -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> Any sources as to the seemingly common minhag of not saying it before
> bentching during the week?

the better thing would be that all the sources (though probably severly
limited in #) I've seen in regards to shir hamaalot are that it's said
on days when one can't say Al Naharot Bavel, which make it sound like Al
Naharot Bavel is the Ikkar, but have a replacement when we cant say it.


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:08:24 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Subject:
Re: mamzer - hetair for Conservative wedding


Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
> At 04:03 PM 9/22/2004, [RDE] wrote:
>> Concerning the hetair of mamzerus of the Igros Moshe (EH 4:13) for one
>> whose parents had a Conservative or Reform marriage - does anyone know
>> other poskim who agreed with the hetair?

> TE.

Assuming you are referring to the Tzis Eliezer - the only reference I
could find is in a case of a sofek Reform marriage (15:52 at the end)
where R' Ovadia Yosef concurs that the woman can remarry without a get.
My question concerned relying on R'Moshe's psak that there is a chazaka
that the marriage is no good just because it was a Conservative or Reform
marriage and therefore there is no mamzerus. It is not clear that the
Tzis Eliezar would rely solely on the fact of non Orthodox wedding to
declare that a person is not a mamzer.

BTW Prof. Marc Shapiro recommended an excellent review article on the
subject "Reform marriages in contemporary halakhic responsa by R' Norman
and R' Dov Frimer Fall 1984 page 7-39. The above is in note #132.

       Daniel Eidensohn


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 >