Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 22

Sun, 19 Feb 2017

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 23:22:27 +0200
[Avodah] Have you perhaps become more machmir or more meikil

<<R. Bluth once told me that RMF used to say that he doesn't say
chumros or kulos. He says Halacha." >>

Nevertheless RMF is known as one of the more mekil poskim (of course any
posek has his own chumros and kulos we are talking about averages)

As is well known it takes more courage to be mekil than machmir. It is easy
to say I am not sure so be machmir. There is a quote from CI (the accuracy
of quotes from CI is debatable) that if he was 95% sure of a kula he would
be machmir but if he was 100% sure of a kula he would paskin that way
against other authorities.
RMF was a mekil because he had the broad shoulders to insist on a kulah
that he believed in even when it was very unpopular.

Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 18:49:52 -0500
Re: [Avodah] Have you perhaps become more machmir or more

R' Eli Turkel wrote:

> R Bleich can object to the words mekil and machmir but the
> reality is that some poskim take into the effect of a psak
> on real people which can lead to kulot while other poskim
> work in a theoretical world and the effect on people is not
> important which frequently leads to a chumra.

I will side with Rav Bleich on this. If a posek will "take into the effect
of a psak on real people", why does that cause it to be labeled a "kula"?
And if a posek feels that "the effect on people is not important", why
should it be called a "chumra"?

Let's take, for example, RET's paragraph that immediately preceded that one:

> OTOH R. Elyashiv has been quoted as stating that when he
> issues a psak the effect on the populace is immaterial. Thus,
> when he outlaws shabbat elevators it is irrelevant whether
> the outcome is that many people are stranded in their apartment
> every shabbat. RSZA OTOH considers oneg shabbat an important
> feature of a psak

Based on this paragraph alone, I would say that Rav Elyashiv's approach is
to analyze the act based purely on the melachos involved, while Rav
Auerbach considers other factors too. This does not define either of them
as a meikil or a machmir. (Do I really need to cite the many rabbis over
the centuries who said, "I'm not being meikil about Yom Kippur, chalila!
I'm being machmir on sakana!")

To disparage Rav Elyashiv for being machmir on elevators, makes as much
sense as disparaging Rav Auerbach for being machmir on oneg shabbos. Alas,
humans that we are, we tend to enjoy one more than the other, and I think
*that's* how the labels took hold.

R' Yitzchok Levine wrote:

> ... many, many conversations and assertions in which persons
> or practices are designated by this one or that one as being
> meikil or machmir.

Please take careful note of how wisely this was phrased. A person may
choose to designate *another* person as being meikil or machmir. But no one
sees himself that way. Everyone sees himself as squarely in the middle.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Chesky Salomon
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:07:31 -0500
[Avodah] Children leading post-mussaf davening

A couple of years ago, I read on one of the halacha blogs a discussion
about children below bar-mitzva age leading the post-mussaf davening on
Shabbos mornings, particularly questioning the propriety of children
leading anything to which kaddish was attached.  I wanted to discuss
this with my Rav, but could not find the blog post again.

Does anyone recollect such a discussion?  (I don't think the discussion
happened here or on Areivim.)

--Chesky Salomon

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: saul newman
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:51:46 -0800
[Avodah] US karaites


i wonder, is there a  presumption that they are not jewish  ie  they would
need giyur ?

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:27:55 -0500
Re: [Avodah] US karaites

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 01:51:46PM -0800, saul newman wrote:
: i wonder, is there a  presumption that they are not jewish  ie  they would
: need giyur ?

They're the Rambam's case of tinoqos shenishbe'u that RMF uses to apply
the category to children born into non-O movements.

But there have been many years since. And there is no proof that the
Qaraim from the Crimea are relted to the ones from the Middle East.

Tradition has it that Hitler wanted to determine if Qaraim were part of
his "problem", the Nazis checked what we believed. The rabbis "invited" in
for a discussion included R' Meir Balaban. When asked, he said we do
not consider them Jewish. But later said he was lying for hatzalas

And those /were/ Crimean Qaraites!

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             For those with faith there are no questions.
mi...@aishdas.org        For those who lack faith there are no answers.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:39:18 -0500
Re: [Avodah] US karaites

On 16/02/17 16:51, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
> http://www.jweekly.
> com/2017/02/16/a-karaite-prayer-little-known-jewish-community-builds-c
> enter-to-tell-its-story/
> i wonder, is there a  presumption that they are not jewish  ie  they would
> need giyur ?

It seems these are Egyptian Karaim, not Crimean ones, so one can 
probably assume a chazaka that they're descended from Jews

Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:07:21 +0000
[Avodah] Psak

Seeing a recent discussion of R' Bleich's thoughts on kula vs. chumrah as a
poseik dovetails with an issue that came up at a shiur I recently gave on
Prayer and OCD. The  question was raised as to how one should relate to a
poseik who one perceived as being on the OCD spectrum. This led to a
discussion of personalities and what draws one into certain professions
(e.g., extroverts becoming actuaries). Any thoughts on this topic, would be
appreciated,  especially on how this impacts psak.(e.g. if a poseik was
always stringent due to a desire to limit uncertainty (which is what OCD
really is about)might later poskim take this into account when weighing his
opinion or does the psak take on its own reality)
Joel Rich

distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Akiva Blum
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:04:05 +0200
Re: [Avodah] Food in the desert questions

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> 3 In the mishkan, a mincha offering was brought.  other offerings too.
> Some
> : required flour and oil.  Where did they come from?  If they kept planting
> : olive trees, then they were always subject to orlah.  People ate matzah
> (I
> : guess) every year, along with marror.  Where was it grown?
The gemorah Yoma 75b says they bought dogon from the umos. Radak in
Yehoshua 5:11 says they made matzos from it.

The proof of the gemorah is the parsha of tzoah, which needs dogon. Why
could the gemorah not bring a proof from the mishkan?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 17:33:12 +0000
[Avodah] Anoos

Would you differentiate between the two concepts of anoos rachmana patrei and afilu chashav laasot mitzvah vnenas....maaleh alav hakatuv keilu asah?
If so, how?
Kol tuv

Joel I. 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 08:34:38 -0500
[Avodah] Amah Ivriya

I have heard it said (usually in the context of military service) that the
Torah forbids a woman to be under the control of anyone other than her
father or husband.

It seems from the beginning of Mishpatim that Amah Ivriya is an exception
to that rule. Or perhaps it's not an exception, but that the rule is
actually "father, husband, or Adon," and we simply drop the last one
nowadays because it isn't l'maaseh. Either way, I'd like a better
understanding of the difference - Why is the military supposedly forbidden
even for an adult woman, while an Adon is allowed even for a young girl?

My first guess would be that the Amah Ivriya is only a concession for a
father who is in a desperate situation. But my understanding is that the
military issur is because of the potential immortality of the situation,
and it seems clear to me that such problems are even bigger with the Adon
and girl.

Please understand that I am asking only according to those poskim who
forbid military service for women for the reasons I've described; for
poskim who allow women's military service for whatever reason, the question
falls apart.

Thank you

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 11
From: r
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 22:36:07 -0500
[Avodah] Mishpatim

''If you lend money to any of your people, even to the poor with you?'' (Ex. 22:24)

Translating the verb in this passage as ?lend' is, of course, correct. But one of our
great sages of near-modern times (Rabbi Jonathan) engages in an ingenious play
on words. He connects the verb ?Talveh' with the verb meaning 'to escort'? as in
the word ?levaya'for ?funeral' ? and thus translates the verse: 'If you think your
money will escort you at your departure from this world, think again. It is the poor 
whom you have helped who will accompany you.'

Rabbi Jose ben Kisma said this with clarity: 'In the hour of man?s departure, neither
silver nor gold nor precious stones no pearls accompany him, but only Torah and
good deeds.' (Avot 6:9).

I also remember hearing that when you go before the Almighty, you will not be asked
for your bankbook but you will be asked for your receipts.

The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.
Mahatma Gandhi

Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Professor L. Levine
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 19:08:50 +0000
[Avodah] Parents and Children

The following is from pat RSRH's commentary on

You shall neither prostrate yourself before them nor worship them, for I,
the Lord, your God, am a zealous God, Who visits the iniquity of the
fathers upon the sons, upon the third and the fourth generation of those
who hate Me,   ???? ????????????? ????? ????? ????????? ???? ???????
??????? ????????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ???
??????????? ????? ????????? ?????????:

Perhaps the meaning is that God carries over the sins of parents to
children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren; He makes them responsible
for atoning for the sins of the parents. Instead of quickly destroying the parents
because of their sins, God waits until the fourth generation: perhaps
grandchildren or great-grandchildren will return and rectify the deeds
of the parents. Only then, if there is no betterment, does He allow the
generation to perish in their continued guilt.

Whatever may be the true nature of this Divine attribute, two fundamental
truths emerge from it for our most earnest reflection:
The one and only God wants us to accept upon ourselves the yoke
of His rule over all our actions and to recognize Him as the Lawgiver
for our whole lives, and it is He Who grants us life and sustains us for
the fulfillment of His Law. It is in our power to build up our lives or
to ruin them, all according to the measure of our adherence to, or
defiance of, His Law. God lives and endures, and He judges a person
according to his deeds. There is no escape from His judgment.
Furthermore, the weal or woe of the children depends on the parents
- all according to the measure of their virtue or vice. Children are
fruit growing on the tree of the life and fate of the parents. For the sake
of our children we should preserve our health; for the sake of our
children we should act morally and charitably; for the sake of our children
we should be spiritually vigilant and valiant.

Just as it is certain that God sends each child into this world with a
perfectly pure soul, it also is certain that parents bequeath to the physical
nature of their child their flawed propensities, weaknesses and defects.
These present the child with a formidable task, and to overcome them the
pure soul of the child must test and prove its godlike power. The parents'
sins line the cradle of their infant with unhappiness, sickness, and the example
of moral degeneration, and the little citizen of the world is destined
to climb a hard steep path of trials until he prevails in the moral test.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 22:30:46 -0500
Re: [Avodah] eilu v'eilu

On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 01:43:24PM -0500, M Cohen via Avodah wrote:
: Interesting insights on eilu v'eilu (and other issues)
: From R Moshe Shapiro zt'l
: <http://j.mp/2j7eeOa> [On scribd.com -micha]

It is quite relevant to RZL and my slow-speed discussion on the topic.
Particularly, starting with pg 4, col 2, the par. that begins "This
brought up the subject of Eilu veAilu".

The discussion touches on the Chinukh #496 (quoted in fn 19), IM OC
haqdamah (provided in fn 20) -- both as saying that EvE means that's
what we hold like, even if they are wrong.

Although RDE himself notes that RMF appears to contradict this in YD
3:92 (fn 21) -- so I don't know why he posed to RMS Rav Moshe's position
based only on the haqdamah) -- both as saying that EvE means

In contrast, RDE ascribes a multiple Truths view to the Yam Shel
Shelomo (BQ, haqdamah; fn 22), the Ritva (Eiruvin 13b "EvE", fn 23;
which we discussed at length) and the French chakhamim in the
Ritva, R' Yaakov Kamenecki (Emes leYaaqov Devarim 25:1 pg 616,
quoted in the notes in fn 24).

RMS responded that everyone holds eilu va'eilu means a plurality
of truths, and the "emes" of the chinukh is "emes lehora'ah". When
RDE reiterated the first shitah, RMS responded with a "Chas veShalom!"

This is different than either RZL's *or* my position until now.

They then touched on the Maharal (Be'er haGolah, be'er 1), that EvE
is only for machloqesei Beis Shamai and BH, which RMS dismissed as
a chidush and a daas yachid.

And finally (pg 7), the discussion veers away back into disputes into

As I said, it's worth printing up, because all the references are with
paragraph or multi-paragraph long quotes in the footnotes.

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507


Avodah mailing list



Send Avodah mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

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

A list of common acronyms is available at
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)

< Previous Next >