Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 006

Monday, September 28 1998

• Halacha and Public Policy
• Re: Ashkenaz/Sfard
• RE: Reform/Conservative -- Internet, Boycott Issues
• Re: Avodah V2 #5
• Re: Ashkenaz-Sefarad split
• Fw: Rema and Shulchan Aruch
• Re: Avodah V2 #5
• Re: Avodah V2 #5
• Re: Beracha L'vatala in foreign languages
• A Story about the Nesivos
• RE: Conservative movement and its dangers
• Re: chumros
• Succoh on Shimini and Litvish Oxymorons
• Re: Conservative movement and its dangers

A question was raised by Harry Maryles:

<< 
 The problem is, what if a parent is contempalting sending his/her 
 child to either Solomon Schechter or public school and asks your advice. 
 How would you answer?
>>

( My response is also a response to Akiva Miller's post, concerning among
other things shofar blowing in a non-Orthodox synagogue ).

We have a klal in the g'mara, "halacha v'eyn morin keyn".  Rashi in Shabbos (
12: ) understands that there is an issue of zilzul and that is why we do not
publicize the halacha.  I always wondered how this klal would be applied in a
modern setting, until I began dealing with the issue of interaction with non-
Orthodoxy.

In a nutshell, I feel that there are certain times when halacha would dictate
one response, but because of matters of policy we can not publicize such a
psak.  For example, the issue of driving to shul on Shabbos.  If confronted
with a situation where a person tells you he is definitely driving to shul,
but wants to know whether to drive to an Orthodox shul or a non-Orthodox one,
what should one say?  I argue ( and I know many disagree with me ) that we
should recommend the Orthodox minyan- at least this way the person gets a
valid t'filla b'tzibur for his chillul Shabbos.  Others argue that it is a
mitzva ha-ba'a b'aveyra.  It could be argued back that this is better than a
non-mitzva ha-ba'a b'aveyra, or worse an aveyra ha-ba'a b'aveyra ( if one were
called to the Torah and made brachos l'vatala ).

In any case, though, I would not give a drasha aboutthis from the pulpit.  It
is a situation where because of communal policy, we have to take a stand
against driving to shul on Shabbos, we can not explain the halachic issues
publicly.

The same could be argued for Rav Soloveitchik's comments about the invalidity
of shofar from a non-Orthodox shul, as well as my grandfather's annual
newspaper ads where he exhorted non-Orthodox Jews to stay home on Rosh
HaShana, rather than drive to shul for shofar.  Publicly this is the position
that must be taken.  If it stops even one person from being mechalel Shabbos
or Yom Tov it has succeeded. 

However, if approached privately and asked, then we must first try and
dissuade the person from driving.  However, if confronted with the reality
that the person will drive no matter what, and is only asking where to drive,
I feel that in such a case we should counsel him to go to an Orthodox shul.

The same would apply to the original question.  First try and get the child
into a yeshiva day school.  If that is not a possibility, then one has to
think long and hard before counselling someone to forgo any sort of formal
Jewish education, even if it is filled with distortions and innaccuracies, and
go to a public school.

EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> <<
> [page 302 From Yavneh to Pumbedisa- - Artscroll]
> >>
> I would not use Artscroll as a source for history.  Their research methods are
> not the most rigorous.

Are you disagreeing with what I quoted from Artscroll or merely with the fact that
the information was quoted from Artscroll? I have told by a number of people that
the history work edited by Rabbi Hersh Goldwurm is accurate. I don't think that
most of what Artscroll publishes is meant as history but this is.  If you are
disagreeing with what I quoted  - I would appreciate knowing on what basis?

> <<
> The Shulchan Aruch was viewed as an attempt
>  to preserve this dominance. That is one of the reasons why the Rema wrote a
>  similar code to defend the Ashkenazic practices from being obliterated by the
>  Sefaradic migrants.. >>
>
> Where does this logic come from?  Had Rema intended to preserve Ashkenazi
> supremacy, he would have written a competing code, not written glosses on an
> existing one.
>

This is not logic but a fact that can be found in the Rema's introduction. Aside
from objecting to the derech of psak of the Shulchan Aruch - "to follow after the
Rif and the Rambam  when most achronim disagree with them and therefore it will
become widespread practice things which are not in accord with halacha according
to the words of the chachomim from whose water we drink i.e., the well known
poskim of Ashkenaz and France...whom we are their descendants. And I saw the words
written in the Shulchan Aruch are presented as if they were given by Moshe by G-d.
and the students who come later will drink from these words without dispute and
with this will destroy all the minhagim of the lands...and therefore I saw to
write the opinion of the Achronim at those places that I didn't agree [with the
Shulchan Aruch] in order to arouse the students....and all those places where I
knew that the minhag was not like his words I will search and find and write "that
this is the practice".

The fact is that the Rema did not disagree with everything in the Shulchan Aruch.
He viewed the Shulchan Aruch as a useful sefer - which already existed and was
accepted. His worry was that its success would obliterate the Ashkenaz practices
as well as derech in psak.


                                     Daniel Eidensohn

I am happy to continue this thread regarding non-Orthodox movements,
although I am not certain if it falls within the province of Avodah.

Akiva Miller writes of his internet experience:

>I found a large number of people who
>were quite proud of their Jewishness, and considered themselves to be
>quite observant, except that they were observant of non-halachic
>adaptations of Judaism.
The suspicious phrase in the above sentence is "large number."  On a
given chat list, three or four articulate posters can create a
substantial presence.  Does this "large number" exceed a minyan?  (I
spent 1-2 years on soc.culture.jewish and encountered an objectively
small number who fit Akiva's description.)  According to the Jewish
population surveys, there are hundreds of thousands of Conservative
Jews.  I stand by my earlier statement that all but a handful of these
are rank amei ha-aretz.

Since the birth of Reform, there have always been knowledgeable and
sincere Jews who actively affiliate with non-Orthodox movements.  In
this century the Reform movement has included scholars such as S.
Freehoff and S. Atlas, the latter being the editor of the Hiddushei
ha-Raavad al Bava Kama.  The Conservative movement has included many
Torah scholars, although a number (a "large" number ?) of these did not
necessarily explicitly identify or associate themselves with the
non-halakhic theology of that movement.  But, as R. YGB already noted,
there is very little Torah scholarship in Conservative ranks today.  One
exception is Louis Jacobs, a London-based Conservative rabbi who knows a
lot, has written a great deal and who has proclaimed that he does not
believe in Torah mi-Sinai.  But you will not find Conservative rabbis at
the local level with the knowledge of a Louis Jacobs.  Indeed, most have
weaker Gemara skills than the average yeshiva high school graduate.

>I found intelligent people, who had spent time thinking
>over their philosophies, just as I have done. These were not people who
>chose Conservative or Reform because it was *easy*. They really and
>honestly *believed* it!
This is an important point, and I hope it does not surprise too many
people.  There is an unfortunate tendency within the Orthodox community
-- especially those who have lived very insular lives -- to assume that
non-Orthodox Jews are generally not sincere in their beliefs.  This is
not only simplistic and patronizing, it is FALSE.

>My only point is that they DO exist, and they are NOT to be trifled with.
This brings up another issue.  In my experience on broad-based Jewish
chat lists, many of the self-appointed defenders of Orthodoxy are
ill-equipped to fulfill that role, and cause untold damage thorough
ill-considered postings that involve hillul Hashem, ona'at devarim, and
hora'ah she-lo ke-halakha.  They bring shame to Torah, ohaveha
ve-lomedeha.

On the subject of Conservative day schools, Akiva Miller writes:

>I would compare this situation to one who must choose between hearing the
>shofar at a Conservative institution or not hearing it at all.
I would not make such a comparison.  I believe that it is mistaken to
blindly apply anti-Conservative rulings from the 1950's to the current
situation.  At that time, whole Orthodox communities were defecting to
the Conservatives.  A total boycott was a sound and reasonable response.
 Today, the situation in America is different in two respects.  First,
as has already been pointed out, the Conservative movement is no longer
drawing frum people away from Orthodoxy.  Second, whereas most
Conservative Jews in the 1950's had grown up in observant or traditional
homes in Jewish neighborhoods, that is no longer the case.  Today they
generally grow up in a thoroughly secular American suburban environment.

>I was taught that the reason for the boycott on Conservatives is that we
>should wish all the non-halachic "shuls" to vanish from existence, and we
>prevent that from happening when we grant them any kind of recognition at
>all.
I think this is based on faulty reasoning as well.  It presumes that
they depend for their existence on our recognition of them.  While it
may be flattering to think so, it defies logic.

> Further, we recognize that if this wish is fulfilled, then there
>will suddenly be no place for those Jews to go, but that is a GOOD thing,
>because then they will be motivated to seek out a genuine source of
>Torah.
Halevai!  However, in reality it seems that most Jews with no place to
go, go nowhere.  I consider that a BAD thing.

>Further, we recognize that only SOME of them will actually go to
>the effort of trying to find some real Torah, but that is BETTER than the
>current situation, because right now NONE are motivated to look beyond
>their current situtations.
That is not true, as anyone working in kiruv can tell you.

>A partial Torah is no Torah at all. We are not satisfied with
>half-measures.
This is stirring rhetoric, but not consistent with Halakhah or the
notion of kiruv.  It suggests that there is no value in persuading a
non-halakhic Jew to do a mitzvah if there is no guarantee of continued
observance.  It suggests that there is no value in a non-observant Jew
marrying another Jew (putting aside concerns of future ishut problems).
It suggests that there is no value in teaching Torah to someone unless
there is a certainty (or at least a strong likelihood) that he will
become frum.  I am certain this is not what you mean.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

R YGB wrote:

<< 
 > Christianity or Buddhism. The only difference is that we must try to
 > influence the conservative and have them return to the truth, whereas we
 > don't need to deal with Christians or Buddhists. I think this underlines
 > Elie Ginsparg
 >
 
 We don't?
 
 I thought we do, just we are so messed up internally that we do not have
 the necessary resources to go and do our "or la'goyim" thing as we should.
 
 YGB 
>>

I think ther eis a difference between what we have to do vis-a-vis Jews and
non-Jews.  I understand or la-goyim, as being literally a light.  Just as a
light illuminates, but does not get involved with the person using that light,
so too, we have to show the path to HaShem, but we do not have to directly
interact with the non-Jews to teach this lesson.  Rather, we must act
according to halacha, and show others, through our actions, how to serve
HaShem.

With Jews, we must actively go out and involve ourselves in teaching them, not
only by example, but by educating them directly.

Eliyahu Teitz

R. E. Teitz writes (in response to R. D. Eidesohn):
>>"Paradoxically, perhaps the greatest internal factor which led to their [the
>>Gaonim] decline was the very success of the yeshivos in producing
outstanding
>>scholars...". [page 302 From Yavneh to Pumbedisa
>> - - Artscroll]

>I would not use Artscroll as a source for history.  Their research methods
are
>not the most rigorous.

On the issue of the decline in Geonic authority, non-Artscroll
historians have attributed it to many factors, including the political
disorder in Bavel and a spate of mediocre roshei yeshiva leading the
yeshivot in Bavel.

>Where does this logic come from?  Had Rema intended to preserve Ashkenazi
>supremacy, he would have written a competing code, not written glosses on an
>existing one.

As a point of history, Rema DID intend to write a code.  Once the
Mehabber has already begun the SA, however, he resigned himself to
composing the Mappah.  It is generally assumed that Rema was
interested, not in preserving Ashkenazi supremacy, but in preserving
Ashkenazi independence.  An important discussion of the history of the
Shulhan Arukh was authored by the late R. Yitzhak Twersky in an article
entitled "The Shulhan Arukh -- Enduring Code of Jewish Law."  This
originally appeared in an issue of Judasim (with a light brown cover)
around 1966 and was reprinted in a volume published by Ktav, Studies in
Jewish Law and Philosophy.  Among other things, R. Twersky recounts the
critique of the SA in the Vikkuah Mayyim Hayyim.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Dear Rabbi Teitz:

    You stated that "Had Rema intended to preserve Ashkenazi supremacy, he
would have written a competing code, not written glosses on an existing
one."  But  he also wrote the Darchei Moshe on the Tur.   If the Darchei
Moshe came first, he indeed write a competing work.

Best regards,

Levi Reisman

     re: Chumrah,
     
     My Hashkofo re: Chumro is a bit radical but here goes
     
     1)  Virtually any chumro in one dirction has an offestting kulo in 
     aonther direction.  EG, If your machmir to daven more, you can be 
     matriah the tsibbur.  
     
     2) Halocho therefore dictates an equilibrium, bending over bakcwards 
     in any direction is undesiable.  EG, if we decide to be very machmir 
     about ending Yom Kippur late, we can be mazzik a lot of people.  
     similarly, virtaully NOBODY is machmir on Yom Kippur ot observe Yom 
     Tov sheini shel Goluyos (although after this emaikl it will 
     undboutedly be seriously considered.)  Even the Yom Tov sheini of 
     Simchas Torah leeds to the absolute kulo of not wearing Tefillin.  
     
     3) This hashkofo of adding chumros has tended to make Halocho pesuka 
     an oxymoron.  A Psak is by defintion decisive,  The last several Doros 
     has succeeded in making even the simplest halaochos vagues and less 
     determinate.  I think this is a very undesirable trend.  The Gemeor 
     was unfraid to take a stand an be koaio halaocho even lekulo (eg in 
     Arvei Psochim re: continuing a seudo...)
     
     4) The very nature of being machmir on practice has let to the 
     specific kulo of evading analysis and further learning.  I do this 
     myself.  When I am unsure of certain brochos, I wash for haMotzi and 
     go through a lot of Tircho to bench, etc.  yet I easily evade the 
     really big Tircho of sitting down with the shulcahn Aruch and learning 
     the din properly.  I think an honest view of the Yeshivish world will 
     see that many use chumro as an intelletual shortcut to avoid the harsh 
     reality that to learn the halocho properly requires work.
     
     Certainly there is some room for personal chumros and the Rambam does 
     recommend bending over backwards in the specific case of a Baal 
     Teshuvo.  Generally, however, lo kol hamarbe harei zeh meshuboch.  
     There were many times I stayed up all night on Shavuos and davened 
     kevosikkin, but truthfully my kavanno was less than my usual poor 
     level, that is I was drifting off to sleep at all kinds of points 
     during davening.  I'm not sure if vasikin is worth the price of 
     kavono.
     
     I think when we restore halacho as a highly honed technique for 
     gaining a high state of equilibrium we will bee much better off; as 
     opposed to seeing it as a minimalistic jumping off point from which we 
     can begin to add all kinds of additional chumros.  
     
     Gmar Tov
     
     Richard Wolpoe
     
     
        
        
     
         
     

In a message dated 98-09-28 11:41:53 EDT, you write:

<< 
 I think ther eis a difference between what we have to do vis-a-vis Jews and
 non-Jews.  I understand or la-goyim, as being literally a light.  Just as a
 light illuminates, but does not get involved with the person using that
light,
 so too, we have to show the path to HaShem, but we do not have to directly
 interact with the non-Jews to teach this lesson.  Rather, we must act
 according to halacha, and show others, through our actions, how to serve
 HaShem.
 
 With Jews, we must actively go out and involve ourselves in teaching them,
not
 only by example, but by educating them directly.
 
 Eliyahu Teitz
  >>
If we accept that the ultimate goal, as we articulated in our prayers last
week, is that "vyomer kol asher nshama bapo..."then it seems reasonable that
we should play some part in this in an active way if possible(ie not just
being a role model and hoping someone will happen by and notice us). The Rav
pointed out that this is the reason why shfach chamatcha appears where it does
in the haggada- not as a general desire for revenge but because these nations
refuse to recognize hashem and therefore are holding us up from the ultimate
goal .

Gmar chatima tova
Joel Rich

I wrote <<< It appears that Rav Moshe may have gotten a bit stricter over
the years regarding Hashem's Name in other languages. >>>, and gave some
quotes to demonstrate this.

Daniel Eidensohn responded: <<< I am not sure that your conclusion is
warranted. Rav Moshe was known to posken differently depending upon the
situation. I don't think you can deduce from the fact that here he says 
not to follow the suggestion of the Aruch HaShulchan that he had changed
his views. He doesn't say that he himself has altered his position 
m'ikar hadin. He simply indicates that there are those who view it as a
beracha l'vatala and that the Aruch HaShulchan can't  simply dismiss
their views so easily to justify his proposal.  I am open to an
alternative reading but at present I don't see that this indicates that
he had changed his view. >>>

I did not mean to say that Rav Moshe DID change his view, only that he
MAY have. The two situations, while not exactly the same, seem extremely
similar to me. In the case where one is already definitely yotzay with a
Hebrew beracha, the English one might not be a beracha levatala. Later,
in the safek beracha case, he goes to a much greater effort to show that
saying the bracha in Aramaic could be levatala.

Granted that Rav Moshe did not give a definitive p'sak in either case. I
only meant to suggest that he MAY HAVE modified his view, even if
slightly. But reflecting on it now, it may be that the main difference
was in the nature of the way the questions were originally posed: To the
situational question about the banquet, he simply told the questioner
what to do. But when the question was based on a lengthy Aruch
Hashulchan, R. Moshe responded in kind, replete with sources.

I am intrigued by R. Eidensohn's reference to the Igros Moshe, <<< O.H.
II #25 page 197 where he discusses saying secular names of G-d with
uncovered head. "And to mention the name G-d in English with intent to
G-d with uncovered head - it would appear that one does not have to be
too particular." >>>  I'll check this out when I get home. I wonder what
is meant by "with intent to G-d"... Could this include reciting berachos?
If one must have his head uncovered, and needs to eat, perhaps it would
be better to recite the berachos in English than in Lashon haKodesh?

Akiva Miller
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Rabbi Herschel Schachter Shlit'a last night presented a drasha in Highland
Park, NJ, on the importance of resolving conflicts and asking mehila before
Yom Kippur. In this context he told an amazing story that I thought I would
relate to the list.

The author of the Nesivos Hamishpat, one of the more preeminent and
well-known commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch,  held a post in the
rabbinate. However, upon divorcing his wife, the town felt that he could no
longer act as a role model for the community and fired him, despite the
entreaties of a number of gedolim who vouched for his tzidkus and scholarship.

Because he needed parnassa, the Nesivos became a businessman. After a period
of time, in the course of his business dealings, the Nesivos felt the need
to take someone to a din Torah.

Upon hearing the case, the court ruled against the Nesivos. 

The Nesivos asked the Rosh Bais Din the basis for the ruling, knowing full
well that his own scholarship was an order of magnitude greater than the
Rosh Bais Din himself, thinking that he would be able to sway the argument.
The Rosh Bais Din, not realizing that it was none other than the Nesivos who
was the plaintiff in this case,  said to the Nesivos that there is this
great new sefer  called the Nesivos Hamishpat that dealt with the very issue
at question in this dispute! The Rosh Bais Din showed the Nesivos chapter
and verse in the sefer, and to his utter amazement the Nesivos had to admit
that the Rosh Bais Din was absolutely correct in his ruling.

The moral of the story is that we occasionally get involved in personal
disputes, very often within families, where we believe so absolutely in the
justice of our position that we do not even concede that the other side has
a valid point of view.  These types of machlokes never resolve themselves,
with later generations being born into and carrying on feuds they do not
even understand. If such extreme subjectivity  even affected a godol of the
stature of the Nesivos himself, how much more so are we vulnerable to making
premature judgements about people and motives, with tragic results for the
family and Klal Yisrael in general.

R. Schachter concluded by saying that three times a day we end Shemoneh
Esrei with  "Sim Shalom". Yet, if we do not grant a mehila belev shalem to
anyone who had slighted, insulted, or otherwise hurt us, then in a real
sense this bracha  is a bracha levatalah.

G'mar Chatima Tova

Arnie Lustiger 

<<Rabbi Clark also wrote - In truth, I do not understand Harry's
critique
<<of the Solomon Shechter schools....   Certainly this is preferable to
<<public school! >>> And Harry Maryles responded <<< ...So are we better
<<off with the Solomon Schechter school system, or are we better off
<<without them?  This is what I have been pondering for a long time. >>>

<kennethgmiller@juno.com (Kenneth G Miller)
<I would compare this situation to one who must choose between hearing
the
<shofar at a Conservative institution or not hearing it at all. ......
<I was taught that the reason for the boycott on Conservatives is that
we
<should wish all the non-halachic "shuls" to vanish from existence,
<....In short, unless I am wrong about the reasons for the issur re
shofar, then we <would be IN GENERAL better off without non-halachic
schools

The above teshuva was dealing with the issue of no mechitza and baali
teshuva who lived in walking distance of Conservative temples but not
Orthodox davening. Also at the time there was a movement in some
Orthodox shuls to have separate seating but no mechitza. The important
part of the teshuva was to reaffirm in no uncertain terms that these
points can not be compromised on. I think a better example regarding
education would be Rav Meir and Elisha ben Abuha.  Rav Meir kept in
contact with Elisha even after Elisha went "off the derech".  Rav Meir's
contemporaries did not agree with him.  Even this comparison may not be
good, because Elisha new he left but most of our Conservative and Reform
brethren do not know/feel that they have left. 


>  ...then there will suddenly be no place for those Jews to go, but that is a GOOD
> thing, because then they will be motivated to seek out a genuine source of
> Torah. 

This has been proved wrong for at least the last 300 years. We have not
been able to show the majority of jews that the Emet as we know it is
the way to practice Judaism.  The problem is with us who follow the
Emet. Our current education system puts a heavily skewed emphasis on
brighter students who can master gemorrah.  If you do not fall into that
category it is very easy to fall out of the system and out of Yahadut. 

> The problem is, what if a parent is contempalting sending his/her child to either >Solomon Schechter or public school and asks your advice. How would you answer?

It is much easier to have a positive parental influence on your child
and keep them from falling totally "off the derech" when they are in a
jewish environment than a mixed or non jewish environment.   

The way we practice our faith is very minutiae oriented.  We do not do a
good job with addressing people who need a more spiritual path or a path
that has more emphasis on bein adom l'chavaro. This is exactly why
chasidus came about and thrived and l'havdil why Conservative came about
and thrived .  


>.... But in the *long* run, I suspect that we'd have even more successes if there were >no synagogues or schools other than ones truly dedicated to HaShem and Torah.

It seems to me that many sephardim and Israelis feel this way.  They
would prefer to be "lapsed" practitioners then part of a movement that
legitimizes their lapse.  The question is why were the ashkenazim not
happy with this solution and how do we convince more of the masses that
following the Emet as we have it is the best way to live?

Saul Guberman

In message , Cheryl Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu> writes
>The gemara in pesachim 26 cites a dispute between R. Yehudah and the
>
>Chachamim on how to do biur chametz. R. Yehudah says davka by burning and
>the Chachamim say you can throw it in the sea,wind. There is also a
>dispute between rashi and Tosfos whether R Yehudah law applies to the time
>before pesach or to the time after pesach. There is also a dispute between
>rishonim (rashi+tos) vs. (Rambam) whether we hold like the Chachamim or
>Rabbi Yehudah. The Mishnah Brurah poskens (based on the rema) that in all
>cases we burn in order to satisfy all opinions. I'm citing this as an
>example to my earlier stated premise that the Mishnah Brurah WILL often
>posken halacha in a way which will be yotze according to all opinions even
>if it a chumra (ie--you must burn) this is so since the opinions aren't
>contradictory (ie the Chachamim don't say you can't burn,just that you
>don't have to) 

Don't they? How about Temura 34a? The Mishna on 33b-33a details the
items that require burial and the items that require burning (it
includes chametz b'pesach in the list of items requiring burning, which
Rashi notes is following the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.)   It then goes on
to say "All that are buried we don't burn and all that are burnt we
don't bury, Rabbi Yehuda says, if he wants to be machmir on himself and
burn [those items] that are buried he may, they said to him,  it is not
permitted to change". Rashi explains there that the gemorra will
explain, and further down, the gemorra in fact says "what is the reason
[of the Chachamim], because those that are buried, their ashes are
assur, and those that are burned, their ashes are mutar".

From this gemorra it would certainly seem that the opinions Rabbi Yehuda
and the Chachamim are in fact contradictory (and see for example the
Magen Avraham and various nosei kelim on that Rema there for resolutions
to the problem posed by the Rambam holding what appears to be a
contradictory position by poskening in one place that it is forbidden to
burn becaue the ashes are assur, and in another that one to burn).

 I'm not disputing that the Mishna Brura says what you says he says -
but I am not sure that eg the Magan Avraham does not find the two
positions inherently contradictory, and I confess I am a little puzzled
as to why the Mishna Brura did not bring at least a Biur Halacha to
explain where he is coming from and how he deals with the ashes question
while being choshesh - or am I missing a portion of the dialogue?

>Elie Ginsparg
>

Gmar tov

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

RYGB writes: 
   <On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Michael Frankel wrote:
 > wounds, and with no wish to needlessly inflame litvish hearts,

Too late :-) !>


Guilty of a too hasty pen, I pressed the send key a micosecond before realizing
that my original post had perpetrated a gross tartei disasrei - litvish hearts
indeed. 


< > especially the dor shi'vi'ie (a litvak honauris causa) by dwelling on a >
topic which may remind them/him of my lack of intent to spend shimini > atzeres
in the succoh, and hoping to extricate myself from this endlessly running-on
sentence, I will forbear to do so at present. >  > Mechy Frankel	
	

This is clearly an invitation!  On what grounds?

YGB>

I hesitate to reopen this matter (especially since i was backing the minority
horse and treading water as fast as i could) which was discussed in mail-jewish
at some length - I also don't consider it good form to directly quote oneself.
For a lengthier exposition of my own views I would refer interested parties to
my posting, Mickey Mantle and the Succoh on Shimini Problem, Vol 26, No. 59, in
the mail-jewish archive.  Basically, it asserted the right of contemporary
gedolim (chassidish to be sure) to poseiq and amchoh to follow this pisaq, to
the problematic difficulty in reading the apparant masqonoh in succos 47
ki'pishuto (though alas all the classical posiqim did do so), and the
historical evidence that a continuous strain of tradition always rejected the
apparant masqonoh (i.e. not just a 18th cent chassidic innovation).  A moqore
not included in my original mail-jewish post, which was pointed out to me
subsequently by a respondent whose name i unfortunately disremember (perhaps a
member of the current list?), is the sifas emes on succos 47, which also
rejects the apparant masqonoh after homing right in on the impossibility of
understanding the gimoroh ki'ishuto.  

This discussion embraces methodological issues which bear more than a surface
resemblance to the recent back and forth on ponim chadoshos at shevoh birochos.
 In the ponim case, I felt that after the smoke had settled, RYGB got well
nailed (no doubt he may have a different perspective) by R. Broyde's
methodological objection that if the clear rove of posiqim, enumerated by R.
Clark, explicitly or implicitly (most reasonable shiqul ha'da'as) come out one
way, one may not offer serious objection based on the minority - including an
obscure acharon, or a sevoroh (of which ain qeitz)remembered from bais medrosh.
  Yet on shimini atzeres I aknowledge finding myself subject to the same
methodological objection, (also raised at the time in a private communication
from R. Broyde) since the rove of recognized posiqim is surely not with me.  I
haven't yet figured out a much more satisfactory resolution for my, lichoroh,
inconsistency except to note that this time its my ox being gored, and
something about the hobgoblins of small minds (with absolutely no disrespect
intended to the very admirably consistent R. Broyde).  

Mechy Frankel				frankel@hq.dswa.mil

In a message dated 98-09-28 16:20:07 EDT, you write:

<< Our current education system puts a heavily skewed emphasis on
 brighter students who can master gemorrah.  If you do not fall into that
 category it is very easy to fall out of the system and out of Yahadut.
Saul Guberman
 >>
Amen- I wonder what the makor is for treating those who the creator did not
bless with intellectual acuity as second class citizens. Would we ever permit
a Yeshiva to discriminate against short talmidim? Yet having been involved in
the lay leadership of a Yeshiva day school which tried to take seriously
"chanoch lanar al pi darco" it seems to me that  the schools may only be
reflecting the parent bodies!  One mechanech commented to me that its easy for
the bright kids to feel successful at learning and thus at religion, the real
trick is to make all the children(nb and adults) who fufill their potential
feel successful no matter what that level measures objectively.

Gmar tov,
Joel  Rich

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]