Avodah Mailing List

Volume 38: Number 34

Tue, 12 May 2020

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Zev Sero
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 20:06:55 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Celebrations Lag baOmer Evening


On 11/5/20 7:22 am, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
>> Again, it depends what it is that one is marking in the first place...

> Does it? I am talking about not obeying consensus in sifrei halakhah.
> I said nothing about motive.

I think it does.  The sifrei halacha are talking about the end of 
aveilus for Talmidei R Akiva.  That happens, as they say, on the day of 
the 33rd.  And it's not a celebration, any more than the end of shiva.

That remains the case, but what has happened is that people are adopting 
a new and different occasion, Yom Simchas Rabbi Shimon, which is a 
positive simcha, and starts in the evening, and just happens to fall on 
the same day.  And the custom is that it overrides the aveilus.  Not 
that the aveilus is over, because that doesn't happen till the morning 
(or even till the following evening, according to the Mechaber), but 
something new that overrides it, just as those who celebrate Iyar 5 say 
that it overrides the aveilus.

This doesn't contradict the sifrei halacha because they're simply not 
talking about it.  And the authority would seem to come from the AriZal, 
though the Shaar Hakavanos notes that it was already an established 
simcha before then; he just gave the reason for it, which I suppose had 
been forgotten.

-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Zev Sero
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 20:19:17 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Haircuts Tonight ? on the Night of LaG BaOmer


A further complication to add to the mix: According to the AriZal the 
custom of not cutting hair during sefira is not connected to the aveilus 
and is therefore not suspended for Lag Ba'omer, except for a boy's first 
haircut which is a whole different subject.

-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Zev Sero
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 20:42:48 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Street Minyanim


A counter-point that I haven't seen discussed much, if at all: All the 
sources being discussed are about trying to join together people inside 
a building with people outside it, or even in another building.  But in 
our case everyone is outside, in one large outdoor space, and they can 
all see each other.

In the case where there are no mechitzos separating them it seems 
obvious to me that of course they *can* join together, because on what 
grounds would one say otherwise?  Just because the land they're standing 
on is owned by different people?!  They're all in the same place, just 
socially distanced.

Where there are mechitzos of 10 tefachim, there's no question that for 
hilchos eruvin we consider them separate places. But the question is 
where do we see that this matters for the purpose of tziruf minyan?  Who 
says that just because they're in different *reshuyos* they are 
therefore also in different *mekomos*?

And if we do say that, then even within a shul would we say that there 
must not be a mechitzas esser between the members of a minyan?  Are 
those standing on the bima, which is traditionally enclosed by a 
mechitzas esser, not counted in the minyan?!

In some shuls the rav stands in his own enclosure, which is both ten 
tefachim off the ground and also surrounded by a waist-high enclosure. 
There are shuls where the custom for some reason seems to be that on 
Friday nights the women sit in the main shul, separated from the men 
only by an aisle and no mechitzah.  I once asked the rav of such a shul 
how one can daven there and he told me that he considers his enclosure 
to be a mechitza, so he can daven, and that those sitting in the main 
shul, if they're halachically aware enough to be asking the question, 
should indeed not daven.  But it didn't occur to me to ask him whether 
he would therefore count himself in the minyan, or would require ten men 
besides him.

-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Danny Schoemann
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 10:45:21 +0300
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What is the reason behind the minhag to light


> From: "Prof. L. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
> To: avodah <avo...@aishdas.org>

> >From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis

> <snip> In a letter written in 1489, Rav Ovadya Mi?Bartenura reports seeing a
> multitude of torches lit on Lag B?omer at the grave of Rebbi Shimon bar
> Yochai in honor of his yahrtzeit.

Funny you should post this; in 2009 you informed us of the (little
known) fact that the Bartenura actually reported seeing this in
JERUSALEM at SIMON HATZADIK and it was the 28th of Iyar.

Somewhere along the line somebody edited his story to Lag B'Omer in Meiron.

>Yitzchok Levine wrote on 2009:
>
> > From contemporary documents we learn the Muslims (and a few Jews)
> > cut the hair of children as well as lit a bonfires on the yohrtzeit
> > (28 of Iyyar) of non other than the aforementioned Shmu'el haNavi.
>

Interestingly enough, this week's Hebrew Mishpacha magazine reports
that around 1915 (until the 6-day war IIRC) it was the Arabs who
organized the yearly Meiron celebration even controlling the dancing
and (mostly Hebrew) songs. The highlight of the night was the arrival
of VIP Arabs who danced the Kadjake dance in honour of Ribbi Shimon.

And how can we end off without the Tosefta in Shabbas (Ch. 7:1 -
https://www.sefaria.org.il/Tosefta_Shabbat.7.1 ) that mentions that
one who dances to a flame is committing AZ. The Minchath Yitzchak
comments on the page "as the Goyim do on known days; they make a
bonfire and dance around it".

- Danny, Jerusalem, Lag B'Omer 5780



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 06:12:33 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Ultra-Orthodox suffering in COVID-19 pandemic


.
I translated part of what R' Gerson Edelstein had recently said:

> Those who have not yet done teshuva, they are shogeg, they
> are tinok shenishbu, they are not guilty. They didn't receive
> chinuch, they are not guilty, they are shogeg. But a chareidi,
> his sin is not shogeg. The sins of someone who is not charedi
> is shogeg, but the sin of someone who is charedi is not shogeg.
> ...

and then I commented:

> I leave it to the reader to consider whether (in Rav Edelstein's
> opinion) everyone would fall into one of those two groups, or
> whether there might be other group(s) too.

But I've changed my mind. I'm NOT going to simply "leave it to the reader".
I want to speak my mind and open a new discussion.

When I first wrote those words, "whether there might be other group(s)
too", I was referring to a middle ground between "charedim" and "tinok
shenishbu" [I prefer to use RGE's words where feasible], which some might
call "dati" or "Modern Orthodox" or some other label.

And then it occurred to me that maybe RGE really does see only two groups.
But if so, it is quite presumptuous of us to presume where HE would place
the line between those groups, i.e., which of the groups he'd put US in.

Avoiding sinas chinam means that I try not to hate others.
It should also mean that I will not presume *others* to hate *me*.

When many of us hear the word "charedi", we feel that they are excluding
us, or maybe we choose to feel excluded because of what we understand that
word to mean. Fine. You have a right to use these labels however you like.
But don't presume that you use a label the same way that someone else uses
that label. It could well be that the person who spoke that word had no
intentions of "ultra", and merely meant it in contrast to those who "have
not yet done teshuva ... are tinok shenishbu ... didn't receive chinuch."

I would have preferred it if RGE had used the phrase "shomrei mitzvos". I
admit that I feel excluded by his use of the term "chareidi". I admit that
my first reaction was to think that he considers the Modern Orthodox to be
"tinok shenishbu".

But this reveals the sinas chinam in my heart, because I jumped to the
conclusion that he is deliberately trying to exclude me. It could very well
be that he is simply using a word that is common in his circles. It could
very well be that he'd be the first to agree that the datiim and charedim
are equally "not shogeg".

DISCLAIMER: I know nothing about Rav Edelstein. I am basing these posts
solely on the one paragraph reported in this thread. It could be that he is
on record as considering datiim "more shogeg" than charedim. If so, then
please consider what I've said, when you hear someone *else* using these
terms.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200512/42f33e02/attachment-0001.html>


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 10 May 2020 13:41:03 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] [Areivim] Ultra-Orthodox suffering in COVID-19


Continuing the move of this thread from Areivim to Avodah, started by
R Akiva Miller.

On 7/5/20 6:19 pm, Joseph Kaplan wrote to Areivim:
> I wonder how he knows that. Did he read it in a sefer?

[MB: he = R Gershon Edenlstein, in the video RAM posted a link to alredy.]

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 10:48:10AM -0400, Zev Sero responsed there:
> All the sefarim. See, for instance, the beginning of Rambam Hil' Taanit.  We
> are *required* to make this sort of cheshbon and consider that what happens
> to us is mipnei chata'einu, and therefore can be averted by teshuvah, rather
> than something that just happened and over which we are powerless.

To which I added:
> And, as in every iteration, I would point out that yefashpeish / yemashmeish
> bema'asav does NOT imply causality.

And Zev on Areivim Sun, 10 May 2020 16:47:50 EDT:
> It explicitly does.

> "That when a trouble comes and they cry out over it and make a noise, 
> all will know that it became bad for them because of their bad deeds, as 
> it is written, "Your sins brought these" to you, and this is what will 
> cause them to remove the trouble from upon them. But if they do not cry 
> out and do not make a noise, but say "this thing happened to us because 
> it is the nature of the world, and this trouble happened by 
> coincidence", this is a cruel path, and causes them to stick to their 
> bad deeds, and will add to the trouble and to other troubles."

> That explicitly speaks of direct causality.

And now something I want to add here:

Zev are quoting Rambam, Hil Taanis 1:2-3, which is not what I quoted.
Different "it".

But to get to the point, different "it" in that you are talking about
whether or not causality is involved. Yes, yeish din veyeish Dayan.
But the "it" of the phrase I quoted was response, and it says nothing
about *finding* cause, the topic at hand. The response to suffering is
about taking lesson, not finding cause.

(As for the Rambam, could you really picture the Rambam telling us
to find Hashem's Motive for our issurim, that such a thing is even
knowable? He may even deny that "Hashem's Motive" is a meaningful
concept.)

Batei Hillel and Shammai, or maybe the gemara commenting on their
conclusion (Eiruvin 13b) give us this response as a way to live with
noach lo le'adam shelo nivra. and not any specific time of yissurin.

And in the version of Rav or R' Chisda (Berakhos 7b, not the one I was
referring to, because no "yemashmeish") where it is about a person and
their sins it could still at the end of everything have been yissurin
shel ahavah.

But again, even in the Rambam, the response to suffering is to look for
what to do teshuvah about. Not to think you do or can find a cause. The
response is not about causality.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 33rd day, which is
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF             submission to truth, and what results?



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 09:40:23 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What is the reason behind the minhag to light


> Funny you should post this; in 2009 you informed us of the (little
> known) fact that the Bartenura actually reported seeing this in
> JERUSALEM at SIMON HATZADIK and it was the 28th of Iyar.

I, posted in the same dicussion an older minhag, predating Mequbalei
Tzefas and practiced in the days of the rishonim, that it was
Shemuel haNavi at Nabi Samwel on that day as it the 28th is also his
yahrzeit. Mentioned in shu"t haRadvaz 2:608.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Zev Sero
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 12:23:58 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What is the reason behind the minhag to light


On 12/5/20 3:45 am, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote:
> And how can we end off without the Tosefta in Shabbas (Ch. 7:1 -
> https://www.sefaria.org.il/Tosefta_Shabbat.7.1  ) that mentions that
> one who dances to a flame is committing AZ. The Minchath Yitzchak
> comments on the page "as the Goyim do on known days; they make a
> bonfire and dance around it".

The key word there is "*to* a flame".  "*Le*shalhevet".  Not "around" or 
"near", etc. Of course people dancing around a campfire or bonfire, 
whether on Simchas Torah (as was the old Minhag Ashkenaz) or Lag Ba'omer 
or any other time, are not dancing *to* it or regarding it as a person 
of any kind.

-- 
Zev Sero            Wishing everyone a *healthy* and happy summer
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: BenS
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 18:42:51 +0000 (UTC)
Subject:
[Avodah] Lag B'Omer-Rabbi Akiva's Talmidim


It has always bothered me. that R'Akiva's student died during the Sefirah
period.AS? the Gemara states" Shelo Nahagu Kavod Zeh Baze,.Just because of
Kavod they died? Usually people die because of "serious": avairos.What that
the "serious" aveira that caused them to die?
True, they did not always follow their Rebbes dictum of? Veahavta leraiacha Kamoche, But is that a reson to kill off the future leaders of Bnai Yisroel?
Maybe? someone can come up with sa? solid reason for their demise.
Ben Samson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200512/782684fd/attachment-0001.html>


Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 17:16:51 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Lag B'Omer-Rabbi Akiva's Talmidim


On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 06:42:51PM +0000, BenS via Avodah wrote:
> It has always bothered me. that R'Akiva's student died during the Sefirah
> period.AS the Gemara states" Shelo Nahagu Kavod Zeh Baze,.Just because
> of Kavod they died? Usually people die because of "serious": avairos.What
> that the "serious" aveira that caused them to die?

Well, tzadiqim are judged kechut hasa'arah. So, it depends who these
people were. But I have another theory.

> True, they did not always follow their Rebbes dictum of Veahavta
> leraiacha Kamoche, But is that a reson to kill off the future leaders
> of Bnai Yisroel?

We don't know -- maybe R Aqiva started saying that because they died.
Maybe the teaching didn't exist yet for them to ignore it.

But here's my theory:

The Beis haMiqdash was destroyed some 60 years prior because of sin'as
chinam. R Aqiva built a whole education system that would restart the
transmission of Torah and get us going throughthe years of galus.

That Torah couldn't be founded on people who didn't know how to respect
each other. First, it wouldn't be Torah. Second, it wouldn't be a means
of weening us away from the very mistake we're in galus for!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 33rd day, which is
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   4 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Hod sheb'Hod: LAG B'OMER - What is total
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF             submission to truth, and what results?



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: elazar teitz
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 15:17:17 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Report: Orthodox Weddings to Resume with


The comment was made that
The statement was made that

> it feels intrinsically wrong, at least to me, to be carefully avoiding
> weddings during sefira due to a plague that occurred nearly two thousand
> years ago, and yet not be prepared to defer such weddings due to our very
> own plague, right here and now.

     I feel that it misses the point of the s'fira prohibitions to
attribute them to "a plague that occurred nearly two thousand years ago."
The commemoration was not decreed because of the loss of lives during the
plague; it was because of the major diminution of Torah knowledge which
resulted from it. It was not because there were deaths, but because of who
died and because of the effect on klal Yisraeil of their deaths. Hence,
there can be no comparison to today's tragedy, which thus far, and halevai
veiter, does not have that negative effect.

EMT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20200512/1881427e/attachment-0001.html>


Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Chana Luntz
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 21:11:16 +0100
Subject:
[Avodah] Street Minyanim



RJR writes:

>You might find the following analysis of interest. Having listen to a
number of shiurim i?ve come to the conclusion that while there are technical
points to debate , the mega shaat hadechak issue looms large

>https://aiayk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020audio/VYK4.30.20HaRavShmuelGelley.
mp3
>HARAV SHMUEL GELLEY-PORCH AND ZOOM MINYANIM

Note that RSG mentioned above holds that a porch minyan is mikar hadin, ie
as per my previous post, he is from the second camp of poskening.
Fundamentally start with the Shulchan Aruch and look at the nosei kelim on
the page, and the Mishna Brura, rather than gemora and rishonim as key to
understanding the Shulchan Aruch.  Note also that he (or those on whom he
relies for poskening, I don't know who that is, but he makes it clear this
is not his decision making) holds that maybe one should be machmir and not
say chazarat hashatz, based on Rav Moshe Igeros Moshe Orech Chaim chelek 2
siman 18.  Rav Moshe there is discussing adding a katan to make the tenth,
and he suggests no chazarat hashatz, based on the Rambam holding that bracha
l'vatala is a d'orisa.  But Rav Moshe there (unlike Rav Miller as quoted in
my previous post) even though he is concerned for bracha l'vatala for
chazarat hashatz, holds that there is not a concern with saying the bracha
over krias haTorah as this bracha is really l'kovod haTorah, and not really
over the mitzvah, and so it is only a rabbinic requirement not to say it if
there are not ten.  Rav Moshe does not discuss the question of nedava that I
brought in my previous discussion - but from the preamble discussing that
the shul will close if the katan is not counted for the minyan, and the
focus on kriat haTorah, I suspect that the question was about a Shabbas
minyan, not a regular weekday one; and, as mentioned nedavos cannot be
brought on Shabbat.  It is interesting though, that Rav Moshe is choshesh
for the Rambam for chazarat haShatz, given that he is not when it comes to
Ashkenazi women making brachos over mitzvos aseh shehazman grama, given that
the two would seem to go hand in hand, as per Tosphos. (Rav Moshe,
admittedly, is one of the strongest proponents of the idea that women are
performing full-fledged mitzvos when they eg take a lulav, and presumably
that is the distinction he would make).

Regarding RJR's comment:

>i?ve come to the conclusion that while there are technical points to debate
, the mega shaat hadechak issue looms large

But let's think a little deeper as to what is meant by shaat hadchak here:

a) is the shaas hadchak that if we don't allow these porch or zoom minyanim,
then there will not be minyanim anywhere in the world (other than the few
where there are ten over barmitzvah in one household), with the loss of the
benefits of tefilla b'tzibbur, such as HaShem accepting the tefilos?  Is
this based on a view that what we rule down here, HaShem accepts (lo
beshamayim he) even in our own times?  Because otherwise surely just because
we say it is a minyan doesn't mean that HaShem has to treat it as a minyan.
Especially as He created the virus spread that means we don't have
full-fledged, no questions asked, minyanim.  If the question is whether
HaShem is sanctified b'toch bnei Israel by divrei shebkedusha at one of
these minyanim, that might be an interesting learning question, but why are
we being machmir and holding these minyanim? From our perspective, if
Halachically we are patur from forming regular minyanim, then we are patur,
just as we are patur from bringing korbanos and wearing techeles (if you
hold we don't have it) and other mitzvos that we just can't do at the
moment. We don't say, because there is a shaas hadchak, we should bring
korbanos reliant on minority opinions, or wear techeles unless we are
convinced that this is the real thing and there is no counter-pressure of
even rabbinic concern.   While here, there would seem clearly to be rabbinic
concerns, at the very least, if indeed these are not considered minyanim.
That is additionally why, right at the beginning, I raised the question of
us all being in nidui.  Someone in nidui is not counted for a minyan,
regardless of whether the other technical requirements are met.  There is a
judgment therefore being made here about HaShem's views on all this.  If
HaShem created a situation where a minyan was Halachically incompatible with
pikuach nefesh, and the law of the land, should we be substituting
Halachically dubious minyanim instead, on the grounds this is a shaas
hadchak?

b) is the shaas hadchak that if we don't matir these minyanim, people will
go off and form regular ones, thereby endangering themselves, their family,
and their friends.  That is, we need to matir these minyanim for pikuach
nefesh reasons.  It is a bit like, well you can lie to save lives, so you
can bend the halacha to potentially save lives.  But note that this assumes
that the potential minyan goers are sufficiently callous about human life
and the mitzvah of pikuach nefesh that they will ignore all pleading and
form regular minyanim if they are denied the comfort of believing these
porch minyanim are Halachically kosher.  What does that say about the
halachic observance (or assumed halachic observance) of the participants?

c) is the shaas hadchak the mental health of the participants (particularly
avelim, perhaps), who derive immense comfort from davening in a "minyan",
even if that minyan may Halachically not be a minyan.  The, if we don't have
a etrog, take a lemon, idea, otherwise people will be upset.  Note however
the can of worms that potentially opens up, even if you restrict it to
violating (or possibly violating) rabbinic prohibitions only, and not Torah
ones.  Of the three, this is, to my mind, the most palatable, but there are
lots of concerns in the literature for doing this kind of thing.  How far
can one go in bending the halacha to provide mental comfort in difficult
times?  This is not your classic shaas hadchak because of hefsed meruba (ie
people will lose money), this is saying there is a shaas hadchak because
people are struggling emotionally with the "real" halacha of doing without
minyanim. 

>Joel rich

Regards

Chana



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



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


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


**************************************

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

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)


< Previous Next >