Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 390

Tue, 18 Nov 2008

• 1. Re: praying with a minyan on an airplane (Micha Berger)
• 2. (no subject) (Allen Gerstl)
• 3. Electricity on Shabbas and Yom Tov, Was Pikuach Nefesh (Allen Gerstl)
• 4. Re: Electricity on Shabbas and Yom Tov, Was Pikuach Nefesh (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 5. Blessed in Everything (bakol) (Yitzchok Levine)
• 6. Re: Sephardi-ism: some food for thought (Michael Makovi)
• 7. Re: Eruvin in Pre-War Europe: An Eyewitness Account (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Sephardi-ism: some food for thought (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: (no subject) (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: a troubling halacha (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Some thoughts on Shemonah Perakim (Micha Berger)

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 07:45:07PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: In the latest volume of the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society
: there is an article on praying with a minyan on an airplane.
: The author, Rabbi Weiner...
: Thus in particular problems of a chillul hashem would override davening
: with a minyan. Other problems include proximity to the lavatory and
: immodestly dressed women who need to pass by in the aisle. He quotes
: RSZA as being opposed to minyanim on a plane.

From <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n085.shtml#02>, RDE (the
Yad Moshe) writes:
> Igros Moshe OC 4:20 page 32 "A person who prays sitting in an airplane
> does not have to repeat his prayer. And even lchatchila if it difficult
> for him to stand in the plane and he will be distracted because of this
> it is better for him to sit and to stand prior to bowing down as is
> stated in the Rema 94:5. Look at Magen Avraham sif koton 14."

I had asked:
>>Even when one will be in the air the entire zeman tefillah, R' Moshe
>>Feinstein holds that davening in one's seat is preferrable than a
>>minyan
>>that blocks the way of other passangers, or incoveniences the staff by
>>taking up the galley or aisle.

>Someone asked me which teshuvah it is. I don't know, as I was told this
>pesaqby an LOR, nor do I own a Yad Moshe (the maftei'ach). Can anyone help?

To which RDE replied:
> I could not find such a teshuva in the Igros Moshe. The above is the
> only I found concerning davening on a plane. If anyone finds it please
> let me know.

M"M for RSZA -- Halikhos Shelomo 8:4, indiated in
Uvelekhtekha Vaderekh 7:14, fhn 64. (As per RCSherer in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n084.shtml#23>. Not quoted in
full because his content largely overlaps RDE's.)


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
mi...@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:00:23 -0500R' Yitzchok Levine
<Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu>Wrote: Subject: [Avodah] Some Jewish
Philosophy Is Based on Arab Thinkers >The following is from the new
translation of >RSRH's commentary on Chumash Bereishis 16:14. You
>may read Rav Hirsch's complete commentary on this >Pasuk at htt
p://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/arab_jew_bereishis.pdf
>...The ideas on the unity of God in the writings>of the Jewish
philosophers to the extent that these ideas are
developed>philosophically are based largely on the intellectual
work>of Arab thinkers. They attained emunah ? but they did not attain
the>mitzvos. 
Two brief comments:
 
1.  I am much indebted to Prof. Levine for this reference, especially
because of this bringing to my attention the beautiful explanation by RSRH
as to the mitzvah of "ve-ahavtah" and its relationship to "shemah". Quite
beautiful and profound. 
 
2. RSRH , IIRC,  in chapter 18 of his nineteen letters criticizes the
Rambam for his use of Greek philosophers as RSRH advocates the use of
Jewish sources. The Greek philosophers referenced were actually transmitted
through Arabic sources- so I assume that RSRH while praising and showing
the deficiencies of such philosophers in his Chumash commentary, was much
more negative in his approach to such outside sources of religious
philosophy in his Nineteen Letters.  
Can these two approaches be explained and perhaps reconciled.
 
KTEliyahu
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081118/ca3dbb8a/attachment-0001.htm>

On November 16, 2008R "kennethgmil...@juno.com"
<kennethgmil...@juno.com>Wrote: Subject: Re: [Avodah] pikuach
nefesh>I would like to remind the chevra that according to my
understanding, RSZA, Rav >Moshe Heinemann, and others, hold that
speaking into a telephone on Shabbos is >"only" a d'rabanan, because the
electricity's main function is something other >than heat or light.
According to this shita, such actions are mutar on Shabbos >even for
needs which are less than a full-blown Pikuach Nefesh, and certainly so
>on Yom Tov. andOn Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:38:04 -0500R' Zev Sero
<z...@sero.name>Wrote: Subject: Re: [Avodah] pikuach nefesh >Rich,
Joel wrote:>> Actually I was thinking about karov lmalchut as a
starting point.>Where in hilchot shabbat/yomtov do we find any kind of
heter for karov>lemalchut? ... >But the heter of a double-derabbanan
for tzorchei tzibbur is directly>in hilchot shabbat/yomtov, so that
seems like a straightforward place>to look for a heter in this case. If
  he had a telephone from Mechon>Tzomet we wouldn't even be talking
  about this; but I assume he doesn't. I would appreciate if I could be
  given citations to the references to: RSZA, Rav Moshe Heinemann, or
  others regarding electricity on Shabbas and Yom Tov.	KTEliyahu   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081118/db5e9147/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Eliyahu Gerstl requested:
> I would appreciate if I could be given citations to the
> references to: RSZA, Rav Moshe Heinemann, or others
> regarding electricity on Shabbas and Yom Tov. 

Rav Heinemann's appears in "Guide to Halachos" by Nachman Schachter,
published by Feldheim, pp 29-30. If you don't have access to this wonderful
sefer, I posted the relevant paragraphs a few years ago here on Avodah, at
http://www.aish
das.org/avodah/vol17/v17n093.shtml#04

As regards Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, I may have misquoted him, as I'm
currently unable to find a direct reference. However, I did find something
very relevant to the original post (which involved a Jewish politician
speaking on the phone on Yom Tov about governmental affairs):

Shmiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa 32:41 says that if one has phoned a doctor
regarding a choleh sheyesh bo sakana, he need not weigh the need for each
and every word, but should say whatever is needed regarding the choleh, and
may even say "Shalom" or "Thank you" at the end of the call. The mareh
makom on this says: "I heard from RZSA that once the telephone connection
has been made, there is no prohibition (ayn bo issur) if he continues to
speak, at least for anything which has a need (kol sheyesh lo tzorech)."

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Can't pay your bills on time?? Click for quick cash with a payday loan.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/
PnY6rw2P9vCmcS96tWp7NhpKQQIrLs2NiVS7GrRyTHfZQqVFBlF1Y/

The following is from the new translation of RSRH's commentary on 
Chumash Bereishis.

24:1 Avraham was old; he had come through the days, and God had 
blessed Avraham in everything.

Avraham's happiness came to expression in that he was blessed bakol,
in everything. A person may succeed in everything that he does, everything
that he owns may prosper, and yet he himself may remain unhappy
amidst all this blessing. All his assets may grow and thrive, but in his
heart there is no simcha, he does not grow or flourish spiritually. Avraham,
however, did feel himself blessed, and flourished through all his blessings.

For the rest of Rav Hirsch's Perush on this posuk which gives a 
number of deep insights into life, as well as "a glimpse of
Avraham's contemporaries and of their attitudes toward him," please see

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/bakol_bereishis.pdf


Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081118/e100db49/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha has noted that "koha d'heitera adif" means only that a
heter/qula is a greater hidush, not that it is preferable.

But I content this is not inconsistent with the opinion of some
(Zohar? R' Uziel? R' Ovadia Yosef?) that a kula is to be preferred,
assuming it has solid basis. If a rabbi can find a good, solid,
legitimate basis to be meikil (as opposed to being meikil as dan
l'chaf zchut and such, which are bedieved and to be avoided if
possible), then the qula is to be preferred l'hatchila. For there is
no value, in this view, to being more stringent and submitting oneself
to the Divine heteronomy (nod to Shemonah Perakim according to
Professor Lawrence Kaplan). This is opposed to those who seek humra'ut
as its own value, with stringency inherently preferable (nod to
Rambam's opponents in Shemonah Perakim, according to Kaplan ibid.).

And of course, everyone has the right to reuse an old adage in a new
way. Does anyone honestly think that "yafeh talmud torah im derech
eretz" has anything whatsoever to do with TIDE??!! So if Sefaradim
will reuse "koha d'heteira adif" in a new un-Gemara-ic way, that is
their prerogative.

--------


clear-cut decision-making (apex - R' Ovadia Yosef - Professor Marc B.
Shapiro analyzes R' Ovadia Yosef's pesaq in Edah), whereas Ashkenazim
rely on sevara (my rabbi notes that one can read pages of  Rav Moshe
Feinstein without seeing a single mequor) This difference, according
to Rabbi Steinsaltz, dates back to Rif and Rabbenu Hananel et. al.
versus Tosafot et. al.

-------


assur min haTorah", nevertheless the Hirschians have the same pesaq
method as the Hungarians. But I'll object:
1) I'm not sure how much we can point to KAJ as epitomes of Hirschianism
2) Chadash assur min haTorah has more implications for sociology and
culture and hashkafa than halakhah, I think (though certainly
sociology and culture affect halakhah - I personally probably accept
Meiri so heartily because of all my relationships with gentiles). In
hashkafa, one's attitude towards secular learning, etc., will likely
be affected by Chadash assur min haTorah to a fantastic extent. If so,
then Rav Hirsch would certainly have NOT held by this aspect of
Chadash assur min haTorah, and Zohar's claim would stand that Rabbi
Uziel's Sefaradi perspective is very different than the Eastern
European one, and more like the Hirschian one IMHO.

Mikha'el Makovi

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:03:57PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
:                                                     Shlomo Hamelech's
: gezerah, and the bracha that Chazal instituted, have nothing to do with
: turning a reshut harabim or a karmelit into a reshut hayachid.  They
: are entirely concerned with carrying in a shared reshut hayachid, and
: turning a shared RHY into a private RHY....

Since hapeh she'asar hu hapeh shehitir, (the same beis din that was
gozeir against carrying in a karmelis invented eiruv), I think it would
be more accurate to frame it not so much as an eiruv is a matir as much
as an eiruv-surrounded karmelis never had an issur to begin with.

Halakhah kedivrei hameiqil be'eruvin. I remember this from the Rosh, but
eruvonline.blogspot.com lists the following:
> Mordechai, Eruvin 1:482; Rosh, Eruvin 2:4 see the Gra, O.C. 358:5 and
> the Bais Shlomo, siman 42; Maharash Elgazi, Halichos Eli, Klali 5 Ois
> 251 cites the Rabbeinu Chananel, Rambam and Tosfos; Mayim Rabbim, siman
> 36, 38; Chacham Tzvi, siman 59; Bach HaChadash, Kuntrus Achron siman
> 3; Yeshuas Yaakov, 363:5; Chasam Sofer, 6:82, and Maharsham, 4:105,
> 8:58:5, 9:18.

In fact, the presence of this rule WRT eiruvin (and perhaps agunah
derabbanan, hefseid meruba and a few other cases) proves that in the
vast majority of cases, there is no special priority to meiqilim. (To
return to RMM's citation of someone who said "kocha deheteira".)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:46:01PM +0200, Michael Makovi wrote:
: R' Micha has noted that "koha d'heitera adif" means only that a
: heter/qula is a greater hidush, not that it is preferable.

: But I content this is not inconsistent with the opinion of some
: (Zohar? R' Uziel? R' Ovadia Yosef?) that a kula is to be preferred,
: assuming it has solid basis....

Find them actually saying it, and then you have an argument. ROY does
not -- his system is so heavily "acharei rabim lehatos" that he rarely
needs to rely on other rules.

Actually, the nearest -- within mainstream O -- to what you're talking
about is when halachic process fails, we treat the question as a safeiq,
and if it's derabbanan, we can invoke safeiq derabbanan lequlah.


: And of course, everyone has the right to reuse an old adage in a new
: way...

No, only people who can prove the new point using real sources.
Otherwise, they are simply pulling something out of their own hats and
hiding the novelty of their innovation behind familiar words.

: I agree with R' Micha that Sefaradim seem to rely on majority-vote and
: clear-cut decision-making (apex - R' Ovadia Yosef - Professor Marc B.
: Shapiro analyzes R' Ovadia Yosef's pesaq in Edah), whereas Ashkenazim
: rely on sevara (my rabbi notes that one can read pages of  Rav Moshe
: Feinstein without seeing a single mequor) This difference, according
: to Rabbi Steinsaltz, dates back to Rif and Rabbenu Hananel et. al.
: versus Tosafot et. al.

Isn't that at odds with what Prof Zohar asserted? Doesn't this make it
obvious that this whole C-like vision of Sepharad-ism is simply wrong?

: R' Micha notes that even though R' Hirsch did not hold by "Chadash
: assur min haTorah", nevertheless the Hirschians have the same pesaq
: method as the Hungarians. But I'll object:
: 1) I'm not sure how much we can point to KAJ as epitomes of Hirschianism

So, read RSRH's own teshuvos in Shemesh Merapei.

: 2) Chadash assur min haTorah has more implications for sociology and
: culture and hashkafa than halakhah, I think...
:                            and Zohar's claim would stand that Rabbi
: Uziel's Sefaradi perspective is very different than the Eastern
: European one, and more like the Hirschian one IMHO.

Except that he failed to convince me that R' Uziel actually had this
perspective, and your assumptions about RSRH's style of pesaq is simply
wrong.

Bottom line -- you repeatedly push models of pesaq that simply aren't
normative O and (or: because) they stand on shakey if existent legs.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 06:12:15AM -0500, Allen Gerstl wrote:
: 2. RSRH , IIRC, in chapter 18 of his nineteen letters criticizes
: the Rambam for his use of Greek philosophers as RSRH advocates the
: use of Jewish sources. The Greek philosophers referenced were actually
: transmitted through Arabic sources- so I assume that RSRH while praising
: and showing the deficiencies of such philosophers in his Chumash
: commentary, was much more negative in his approach to such outside
: sources of religious philosophy in his Nineteen Letters.

Perhaps: What's laudable in a nation that wasn't given the Torah isn't
laudable in a baal mesorah. The Moslems used Greek thought in noble
ways, and it is good to learn from them. But not to the point that one
is force-fitting Torah into alien categories.

In the 18th letter RSRH writes, "The age gave birth to a man [1]" -- the
footnote reads "Maimonides" --
    a mind, who, the product of unomprehended Judaism and Arabic science,
    was obliged to reconcile the strife which raged in his own beast in
    his own manner, and who, by proclaiming it to the world, became the
    guide of all in whome the same conflice existed.
    This great man, to whom, and to whom alone, we ove the preservation
    of practical Juidaism to our time, is responsible, because he sought
    to reconcile Judaism with the difficulties which confronted it from
    without, instead of developing creatively from within, for all the
    good and evil which bless and afflict the heritage of the father...

IOW, his criticism is not unequivical. RSRH lauds the solution, and
laments the problem it sets to solve. Perhaps as the Rambam did, when he
titled the book as being for al cha'irin (nevuchim). Or perhaps not,
since Hil Yesodei haTorah is equally Greek.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
mi...@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:18:24AM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: RET writes:
:> I am still waiting for a source (before KSA) that one shouldn't inform
:> relatives of the death of a family member (except for kaddish)

: Basically the source of the KSA is the Shulchan Aruch and Rema.

: The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah siman 402 si'if 12) says:
: One to whom a close relative has died (mi shemet lo met) one is not
: obligated to tell him (aino chova) even if it is his father or his mother
: and on this it is said U'motzei d'vara hu k'sil (Mishlei 10:18) and it is
: permitted to invite him to an engagement or wedding feast and all types of
: simcha since he doesn't know but anyway if he asks upon him he is not to lie
: and say that he is alive as it says, from a matter of sheker keep far away.

: The Rema then adds:
: In any event with male children we are accustomed to make it known in order
: that they should say kaddish but with daughters it is not the minhag at all
: [ain minhag klal] to make it known.

Eino chovan and ein minhag kelal to do it. The KSA goes beyond that and
writes of a duty not to say anything. Not merely a lack of requirement
to tell.

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 03:55:27PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: RAM wrote:
:> So the last kaddish of the davening - after Aleinu - was said by such a
:> son. When other tefilos were added (like Shir Shel Yom and such) an orphan
:> would say kaddish after those too.

: Just for the record: since you pain yourself to summarize the development of 
: tefillah, I point out that the last qadish of teh Gemara is NOT the qadish 
: after 'aleinu, as 'aleinu was originally only part of malkhiyot on RH. It is 
: only in the 13th-14th centuries that 'aleinu became part of the daily 
: liturgy.

For that matter, I don't think there was a "last qaddish of the gemara"
altogether. I lost my copy of R' de Sola Pool's guilde to qaddish, but BH
thank G-d it's now on line.
http://www.archive.org/download/kaddishk00poolrich/kaddishk00poolrich
.pdf
On pp 8-9 he cites Sotah 49a, Berakhos 3a, Mishlei Rabba 14:28, Qoheles
Abba 9:14, A"B deR' Aqiva and other sources that show that Qaddish was
said as a closing doxology to an aggadic address. (Much the way many
derashos today end "ad bi'as go'el bb"a!" or the like.)

Appendix C (pg 107) argues that in the days of Mes Soferim, it entered
the siddur because when davening ended with leining there was a Qaddish
after leining. RDdSP cites Soferim 10:8, 16:12, 19:1, 21:6. (As RAF notes,
no Aleinu after leining.)

However, by the time of the Rambam, Qaddish ended Mussaf and Minchah as
well. No mention of Aleinu in Hil' Tefillah 9:10, 13. Similarly Rashi's
Pardeis. No other qaddeishim mentioned in either source.

I do not know when Qaddish became a closing for davening, rather than
for talmud Torah (which happened to be with davening). Was it during
Chazal's day, or the period of the geonim? But between sections of
davening was clearly during the tannaim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rabbi Israel Salanter

On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 10:38:56PM -0500, Yitzhak Grossman pointed us to
<http://bdl.freehostia.com/2008/11/06/two-chief-rabbi
s-on-rabbinic-wills-and-halachic-ways/> (<http://tinyurl.com/5sl3hy>) from
the blog "Bein Din Ladin":
: At first blush, Rav Uziel's eloquent but rigid insistence on Halachic purism
: is difficult; the axiology of Halachah clearly allows for, and sometimes
: even insists on, the influence of the practical consequences of a decision
: in general, and compassion for the desperate straits of a petitioner in
: particular, on the decision making process...

I happened to sit on this post for a while because I had a lack of time
before last weekend's "Mussar Kallah". However, it's interesting that
the teshuvah in discussion is an example of R' Uzziel violating the
principle Prof Zohar ascribes to him. He argues against any concept
of giving weight to a position because it's a qulah.

About the title of the post... "Two Chief Rabbis On Rabbinic Wills
And Halachic Ways" This is somewhat misleeding. The idiom it refers to
was coined by someone who wanted to imply that there is always a way,
when there is will. His discussion is of whether rabbinic will should
be to seek a way to push deadbeat dads to supporting their children. Not
whether such seeking must perforce succeed.

There are cases (as I recently noted WRT eiruv), where there are explict
exceptions spelled out by Chazal. Such as an agundah derabanan, eg a
usual case of mei'ever layam. So this:
: Rav Shlomoh Yosef Zevin's analysis of Rav Yitzhak Elhanan Spektor's character
: and its impact on his Agunah decisions:
doesn't LAD seem to speak to the general rule. Rather, Chazal weren't
gozerin in a way that maximized pain on women. And therefore one needn't
find a resolution between that and R' Uzziel's point, R' Zevin's analysis
is about one of the few exceptional cases.

The blogger's distinction between BALM and BALC, that R' Uzziel would
seek qulah in the former but not in cases of "vedal lo sehader berivo",
"ein merachamim badin", is unconvincing. It doesn't fit the quoted words,
where R' Uzziel waxes on at length about the job of the Sanhedrin and
subsequent poseqim to find amitah shel Torah. Nothing about judging
between people fairly.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 390
***************************************

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..."