Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 030

Friday, October 23 1998

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 15:57:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
RE: Hatam Sofer on sevara/responding to early Reform


In v2n23, Eli Clark <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM> writes:
:                                Rambam explains that a hakham immediately
: senses the error of his questioner without contemplation.  According to
: Hatam Sofer, the Rambam means that debates can go on endlessly, but that
: a hakham's first instinctive response is really the correct one, i.e.,
: the original reason, "terem nehelak alenu beriyah."

I think the key to being a good posek is to internalize Torah to the extent
that it affects your intuition.

As an example: electricity on Shabbos. There was far more consensus that
electricity should be assur than the grounds of the issur. Li nir'eh that
da'as Torah made it *feel* assur, and then it was a matter of satisfying the
seichel.

Perhaps an approximation of the "native speaker's" relationship to English
(ala Moshe Koppel's "MetaHalachah"). You know what sounds wrong without
knowing what rule it violates. The more familiar you are with the language,
the less often an honest exploration of the rules of grammar are going to
surprise you.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5956 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 22-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:14:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: tum'a issues


Rabbi(*) Eli Teitz <EDTeitz@aol.com>
: Actually, there are seven liquids that can be machshir.  To my recollection,
: blood is one of them.

Blood, or dam? Kashering removed the issur of dam, which implies that with
respect to achilah, what's in the meat isn't dam. Does this mean it's also not
machshir likabel tum'ah?

-mi

(*) My apologies to those Rabbanim, Chaveirim, or whatnot who I don't call by
title. I can't use titles I don't know you hold. I know in general, on the
net, titles aren't used. Somehow, though, that "feels" <grin> halachically
wrong.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5956 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 22-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:30:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: Authorship of the Mishna


Jon Baker writes in v2n24:
:                       So it's an unresolved machloket Tannaim, which becomes
: an unresolved machloket Amoraim, yet only Rebbe's opinion is recorded as
: the anonymous (usually taken to be the majority?) opinion in the Mishnah.

Stam mishnah k'rav Me'ir. I don't know the how independant a thinker Rebbe
was. Perhaps it's taken as a given that he'd never disagree with his rebbe,
Rav Me'ir. (And only gave an opinion where R' Me'ir was silent.)

: Another counterpoint to R' Turkel's Rashi: if the Sanhedrin's power to 
: resolve machlokot ceased with the departure from the Lishkat haGazit, in
: what sense is the Mishnah done as a "psak of the Sanhedrin"?

The Sanhedrin operated as representatives of the people with respect to a
number of mitzvos. There is similarity, therefore, between a decision of the
Sanhedrin and the nation's acceptance of the mishnah.

However, this answer goes too far. As Sanhedrin were still representatives
of the people when in galus. R' Gamliel had those charts of the moon for
questioning eidim. So, for rosh chodesh, the lishkah wasn't required, yet they
represented the eidah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5956 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 22-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:36:13 -0400
From: "Pechman, Abraham" <APechman@mwellp.com>
Subject:
RE: tum'a issues


what's left in the meat after kashering is what the poskim call mohal bisra
(meat juice?). i understand it's not machshir.

actually, not all animal blood is machshir. there's a difference between dam
shechita, tamtzis, and maka. see mishnayos machshirin (where else?) for
parameters. sorry i don't have the details off the cuff. )-:

regardless, i'm told that shochtim like to wet the neck before the shechita
in order to move the hair out of the way (i'm not sure if it's for
chalada/shechita meforoas or just to make the shechita easier), and have so
witnessed one of the shochtim/subscribers of avoda do so (maybe this is only
for lambs/goats, but not cows). if the neck is still wet after the shechita,
it seems that it would be mashkin shetchilasan l'rotzon and the meat would
be muchshar.

this has been seen within the past month or so by those learning daf yomi
(bavli).

avi pechman


> -----Original Message-----
> From: micha@aishdas.org [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 1998 4:14 PM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: Re: tum'a issues
> 
> 
> Rabbi(*) Eli Teitz <EDTeitz@aol.com>
> : Actually, there are seven liquids that can be machshir.  To 
> my recollection,
> : blood is one of them.
> 
> Blood, or dam? Kashering removed the issur of dam, which 
> implies that with
> respect to achilah, what's in the meat isn't dam. Does this 
> mean it's also not
> machshir likabel tum'ah?
> 
> -mi
> 
> (*) My apologies to those Rabbanim, Chaveirim, or whatnot who 
> I don't call by
> title. I can't use titles I don't know you hold. I know in 
> general, on the
> net, titles aren't used. Somehow, though, that "feels" <grin> 
> halachically
> wrong.
> 
> -- 
> Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by 
> Syria 5956 days!
> micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 22-Oct-98)
> For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
> http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
> 


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 16:42:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Subject:
Re: misc.


David Riceman writes in v2n24:
: 4.  Once a sefardi is in an Ashkenazi house he surely should realize
: that stam keilim einan bnei yoman.  I imagine that you wonder whether
: you should put yourself in that position at all.

Beis Shammai made many accomodations (and a few visa versa) in order to be
able to keep company with members of Beis Hillel -- despite differences in
kashrus, tum'ah, and yuchsin.

I'd think we have to put in similar effort.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5956 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 22-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 23:00:06 +0200 (IST)
From: Yisrael Herczeg <yherczeg@netmedia.net.il>
Subject:
Titles


The Chazon Ish discusses titles at length in Kovetz Igros, cheilek 2, no.
87. According to him, whether one is considered a "rav" or not depends on
whether that title is used when he is called to the Torah, irrespective of
whether he has semichah. The Chazon Ish states explicitly that if one is
mekadesh a woman on condition that he is a rav, if he is called to the Torah
by that title the kiddushin is valid and otherwise it is not.

Yisrael Herczeg


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 17:18:04 -0400
From: Saul Guberman <sguberman@leshkowitz.com>
Subject:
tekhelet on gadol vs. kattan


Being that the mitzvah is in the process of being reintroduced, what you
are seeing is a grappling with the issue of how to be m'kayem.  It is
and always was economically difficult to have tekhelet stings. Many
people are afraid to take on
this mitzvah for this reason. Then to definitively be m'kayem D'oriata
you would have to have a woolen garment.  Not everyone wears (or wants
to wear) a wool kattan.  At this point in time some people are more
comfortable wearing tekhelet privately (kattan) and others want to be
public (gadol) about it.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 17:26:54 -0400
From: "Michael Poppers" <MPoppers@kayescholer.com>
Subject:
is Breuer's a Halachic "k'hillah"? (was: RE: kehillah vs. congregation)


Eli: > Today, we are wont to refer to
a community or congregation as a "kehillah."  But this is not the
"kehillah" discussed in the halakhic sources.  Rather, the kehillah was
a form of self-government.  Residents voted on communal appointments,
such as rav or hazan, on property and commercial taxes, for candidates
for town council, on various kinds of religious and commercial
legislation (such as anti-gambling and protectionist measures) and more.
 Moreover, voting was usually not strictly democratic: the consensus of
later posekim is to require rov minyan (numerical majority) and rov
binyan ("qualitative" majority, taking into account wealth, education,
etc.).  Perhaps most importantly, the kehillah was empowered to enforce
its rules, both through fines (hefker bet din hefker) and bans (herem,
niddui).  To my knowledge, there is no analogue to such an institution
in America. ... Of course, there are communities which are relatively
unified under a
single mara de-atra.  I believe this is what Richard has in mind.  The
Breuer's community in Washington Heights would be another example of
what he describes in the mitnagdic world.  But, although such
communities may have less diversity in terms of pesak and minhag, they
do not, I think, come close to being a "kehillah" in the halakhic sense. <
Based strictly on your definition of a Halachic "k'hillah" (which, wherever
it comes from, might be somewhat based on the historical conditions of the
time of its formulation?), I would humbly submit that K'hal Adas Y'shurun
of Washington Heights, a.k.a. "Breuer's," comes as close to the definition
as any k'hillah can in the USA:
-- "the kehillah was a form of self-government": "Breuer's" not only was
formed based on by-laws, with members serving on various committees, and
with a system of checks and balances between the rabbinic and lay
leadership, but it actually functions in this manner; i.e., the average
member feels that matters of import to the k'hilloh are no more out of his
hands than those matters of import to the borough/county, city, state, and
country are :-).
-- "Residents voted on communal appointments,
such as rav or hazan, on property and commercial taxes, for candidates
for town council, on various kinds of religious and commercial
legislation (such as anti-gambling and protectionist measures) and more.":
The various matters of import either are brought for a vote before a
meeting of the membership (either the annual meeting or a specially-called
meeting) or are dealt with by one of the committees whose members, in turn,
serve at the behest of the membership.  In the former case, the result of
the vote is usually a fait accompli (because contested issues are vetted
out during the process which leads to a vote), similar to ballot questions
placed before us in the voting booth.
-- "Moreover, voting was usually not strictly democratic: the consensus of
later posekim is to require rov minyan (numerical majority) and rov
binyan ("qualitative" majority, taking into account wealth, education,
etc.).": definitely applies to "Breuer's"; 'nuf said :-).
-- "Perhaps most importantly, the kehillah was empowered to enforce
its rules, both through fines (hefker bet din hefker) and bans (herem,
niddui).": the lack of bans, I'm sure, has been discussed by others greater
than me.  Just to deal with a small part of a large topic, I would suggest
that the actions which might cause someone to be banned are most likely
also contrary to the "Breuer's" by-laws and that such by-laws (which I
certainly don't know by heart) probably indicate the range of permissible
reactions by the k'hilloh.

All the best from

                                         Michael


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 17:36:13 -0400
From: "Pechman, Abraham" <APechman@mwellp.com>
Subject:
RE: tekhelet on gadol vs. kattan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Saul Guberman [mailto:sguberman@leshkowitz.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 1998 5:18 PM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: tekhelet on gadol vs. kattan
> 
> 
> Being that the mitzvah is in the process of being 
> reintroduced, what you
> are seeing is a grappling with the issue of how to be m'kayem.  It is
> and always was economically difficult to have tekhelet stings. Many
> people are afraid to take on
> this mitzvah for this reason. Then to definitively be m'kayem D'oriata

Is there any leg to stand upon for someone who can bear the cost of tcheyles
on all the tzitzis he wears and yet chooses either koton or gadol?

> you would have to have a woolen garment.  Not everyone wears (or wants
> to wear) a wool kattan.  At this point in time some people are more

Would this be categorically the same as electing not to wear a garment which
has at least four corners in order not to be chayav in the mitzva
altogether?

> comfortable wearing tekhelet privately (kattan) and others want to be
> public (gadol) about it.
>

Has any posek come out with which way (public/private/both) is the best way
to go?

avi pechman


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:05:40 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Re: is Breuer's a Halachic "k'hillah"? (was: RE: kehillah vs


     Indeed KAJ was foremost in my mind, and basically omitted as being the 
     obivous first choice.
     
     KAJ has 1 caveat, it does NOT emcompass all the Torah Jews of its own 
     shchuna, while Elizabeth and New Square (for example) had no shuls in 
     competition.  So at one time, if you lived in Elizabeth, no matter 
     where you davened, Rabbi Teitz was the mora d'asra.  That was never 
     the case in Wash. Heights where there were multiple mora d'asos in the 
     same tchum.
     
     Richard
     
     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: is Breuer's a Halachic "k'hillah"? (was: RE: kehillah vs.   
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/22/98 5:26 PM


El  I believe this is what Richard has in mind.  The Breuer's community 
in Washington Heights would be another example of what he describes in 
the mitnagdic world.  But, although such communities may have less 
diversity in terms of pesak and minhag, they
     do not, I think, come close to being a "kehillah" in the halakhic 
     sense.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 18:46:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Re[2]: angels and talmud torah -- what about mada?


On Thu, 22 Oct 1998 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

>      Is it ok to "learn" Hilchos Yesodei HaTroah before Birchas HaTroah?
>

Yes. It is permissible to love G-d before Birchas HaTorah.
      
>      Is it ok for an oveil to learM?

I would say so.

>      Can this be learned on Tisho b'Ov

I would say so as well.

All this pertains only to those segments about the wonders of Creation.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 20:38:36 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Re[2]: Avodah V2 #28


     Please Clarify:
     
     Isn't calling attraction to oneself and saying: " My tsitsis are 
     correct while yours are incorrect." a form of Yuharo?
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #28 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/22/98 3:48 PM


      This is not an issue of yohara at all but rather an issue of kol 
     yisrael areivim zeh lazeh, and my responsibuility to teach other Jews 
     to be mekayem mitvos HaTorah.  


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 21:06:17 EDT
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject:
TAlmud Torah and nistar, angels, secular study


YGB asks: Huh? Is the study of Nefesh HaChaim not Talmud Torah? If not, then
is the study of R' Chaim Brisker Talmud Torah? I see no difference between 
Chochmas Hashem Yisborach as expressed in one than in the other. 

As YGB wrote himself, the Rambam in yesodei haTorah relates the study of
angels, etc. to a kiyum of ahavas hashem - note that the Rambam does NOT
assume as YGB that it is a kiyum of Talmud Torah otherwise he wouldn't need
the justification that the study leads to ahavas HAshem!  Since this is the
third time I'm making the same point with no response I'll make it the last
time  Read the intro. to Tanya, to Moreh Nevuchim, to Mesilas Yesharim, etc. -
they all justify themselves as filling an instrumental need to help improve
middos, yiras Hashem etc. - were they to be talmud Torah why the need to
justify their composition?!  Torah lishma even if it serves no purpose! - the
logical conclusion is these works are not pure Torah and need to fill some
purpose within the framework of avodas HAshem to merit being read.  They are
not valuable for the sake of abstract knowledge alone.  As for Brisker lomdus
that relates directly to halacha, what is the comparison?!    
     
YGB"s comment: You are attempting to reduce the matter to frivolity and thus
dismiss it. This is a debating tactic, and I am unmoved. To know what serafim,
ofanim  and chayos do is an essential part of Torah. I believe it is called 
"Ma'aseh Merkava."

Ma'aseh merkavah refers to the mystical vision of Yechazkel, not to any and
all forms of esoterica.  Dismissing arguments by referring to them as
'frivolous' rather then responding to the point is the debating tactic, no?

As to the points raised by Micha and Eli, the cheftza shel Torah is defined by
the canonization of Tanach and (to the extent that we can describe the process
as canonization) Torah sheba'al peh.  Peirushim on the above, analysis, etc.
all fall under the umbrella.  Of course, other knowledge, be it esoteric or
secular, that enhances avodah, shmiras hamitzvot, etc. is all of value, but is
not defined as a cheftza shel Torah (though I believe in Torah U'Mada R" Lamm
disagrees, but since I lost my copy I welcome being corrected).  I think the
Chazon Ish's critique of mussar in Emunah U'Bitachon is very much in line with
what I have written.  There is certainly value to improving middos, and as
mussar, hashkafa, etc. relates to being mekayem mitzvot bein adam l'chaveiro,
the mitzva of ahavas Hashem and yiras HAshem etc. it is Torah - but havanah in
these matters 'lishma' for the sake of havanah alone is indefensible.    


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 22:45:52 EDT
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject:
Cheftza shel Torah (malachim, etc.)


My brother -in-law (YGB) and I agreed to disagree over the following example
whcih I think is an excellant illustration of our little machloket.  If one
studies ma'amarei Chazal, aggadada, etc. we both agree that 'hashkafic'
concepts are Talmud Torah as they directly relate to the understanding of the
ma'amarei Chazal at hand.  The question is: were one to study Aramaic grammar
or ancient mathematics (as examples) and use citations from Chazal in one's
study, would that be a kiyum of T"T?   My analogy: if one were studying
grammar and happened to use sentences found in a mathematics textbook as
examples, would that constitute a study of math?  Let the reader decide...

R" Aharon Kahn in YU's publication Beit Yosef Shaul vol. III has a long
article defining what constiututes a cheftza shel Torah, particularly l'fi
shittat HaRambam.  

Once we include the study of angles, the contemplation of the beriya, et al.
in talmud Torah I raise one final question: where do you draw the line???

Good Shabbos - CB


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 01:02:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: Cheryl Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Cheftza shel Torah (malachim, etc.)


A couple of points:

1. The study of angels is culled from sources ex- Zohar, megrashim, maaseh
mwerkava all of which are pure Torah sbeall peh as well as bictav. From
your comments you imply that the study of angels is made up or from some
guide book to the angels, in fact most if not all of the study of angels
comes from midrashai chazal and legitimate sifrei kabballa.

2. When I learn messilas yisarim, chovos lavvavos etc---I understand the
pesukim and chazal quoted much better. In these sefarim the author uses
his wisdom to explain these sources in a way that they should impress upon
ones's life. They don't make up points from there own head. Everything is
based on tanach and chazal. Clearly there explanation in no less torah
then any other commentary by a person of the same time period. And the
notion that you could learn these things before bircas hatorah is border
line absurd since ther is a question if you can say selichos before BHT 
because of
pasulkim, surely these sefartim contain pasukim as well as
explanations--frankly I don't understand where you are coming from in this
issue--surprised :)?
Elie Ginsparg


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 08:27:30 -0400
From: Herschel Ainspan (862-1197 fax-4134) <ainspan@watson.ibm.com>
Subject:
[none]


Subject: Re: learning halachos = talmud Torah ?
	Actually I was thinking of the halacha that an avel toch shiva
is forbidden to learn Torah but is allowed to learn hilchos aveilus
p'sukos.  But indeed bircas haTorah before learning halacha p'suka is
a stronger ra'aya that learning halacha is a kiyum of talmud Torah (MB
47:4, s.k. 6, "lilmod din b'sefer b'li ta'am m'varech") since if not
then the bircas haTorah would be a b'racha l'vatala.
	-Herschel Ainspan (ainspan@watson.ibm.com)


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 00:06:31 +0000 (GMT)
From: Michael Frankel <FRANKEL@hq.dswa.mil>
Subject:
Titles, thanks


As the perpetrator of this thread, I'd like to thank all those who responded
with information - apparantly i have been oblivious and this is something that
is both widespread and has been going on for a quite a while at least in
Chicago).  Live and learn.  A few observations however - apparantly there is
little uniformity to the practice.  Thus in Skokie I am given to understand
there is a peculiar (not meant pejoratively, rather in the sense of a singular,
or localized, practice)formulation "rav u'manhig" which used to be applied to
anyone at a certain level shiur, while lately there is some more formal
curriculum undergirding its usage.  I infer from Eli's comments that in eretz
yisroel it is quite common for roshei yeshivoh not to have formal simichoh.  At
our little local kolel, it is at least the practice of some people to refer to
anyone learning there with such a title (I'm not sure whether the boys
themselves utilize it), and so on.   I'm afraid this also undermines one of my
standard arguments against the right of conservative or reform clergy to
utilize the title - which is the expropriation of a word with well established
connotation and replacement by new connotations.  kinda like declaring that
henceforth a thesis on persian art forms should be granted a Ph.D in physics
rather than fine arts.  I never-the-less fully recognize the right of anyone,
or any institution to confer such titular largesse at their own discretion, as
well as recognize the fairness of such in well defined situations - basically
where the recipient is going to act in some official capacity. (by the way,
while i oppose such C/R usage in principle, in practice, if unavoidably
confronted I would indeed employ such honorifics out of desire to avoid
arousing needless anatgonisms) 
 
To (Rabbi?/Rav?/Rav U'manhig?/Dr?/Sir?/Chover?/ Chacham?/(:-)?)E.Ginsparg who
wants to know.. <Why is talking about angels and the way Hashem relates to us
as well as the  spiritual being a bad thread when discussing who should have
the title of  Rabbi is a good thread. I thought this was high level Torah
topics. Second,  I'm not sure of the whole point in the Rabbi discussion.> 

Not every statement has a deep "point" - at least mine, alas, don't. but
perhaps you're different. I was simply asking for information which, happily,
other listmembers were able to supply.  I too am unsure whether this is a "high
level Torah topic" but suspect that any number of other threads might suffer
from the same defect.  Nor should you be surprised to learn that, possibly, not
everybody's assessment of such categorical taxonomies is perfectly congruent to
your own.  As for malachic psychology or their reputed bosonic proclivity to
cluster on pins, hey, its not for me, but if you're interested go for it. I
don't recall applying any negative value judgement such as "bad", just as i
don't recall anybody characterizing this topic as "good". 

<Can anyone tell me who I should call Rabbi? Choice A: someone who has
dedicated his life  to Torah and yiras shamayim, learning parts of shas as well
as the parts  of halacha which is relevant to day to day life,and has a kesher
with a  rav who he can ask sheilos to, or >  

Good question, whom should we address by such a title. While I suspect that I
understand what you're trying to say, I'm not sure if you actually meant to
write precisely as you did.  I would note that your description of A. is
nothing less than the ideal baal habus. should now everybody be called "rabbi",
at least for a Warholian 15 minutes?  My own feeling is that it ought be
limited to people acting in a professional capacity, chinuch or rabbanus or
something like that.

<choice B: someone who is in a three year  s'micha program in a yeshiva
somewhere in new york , where he has a TV in  his apartment and partakes of the
finest elements of American culture>
Having been raised in NY under the quite defensible notion that civilization
ends and the frontier begins west of the Hudson, I really have no idea whether
such educational and or cultural permutations pertain in chicago, or anywhere
else. But evidently you disapprove of TVs in the house, or possibly consider it
incompatible with rabbinic status. or possbly associate it with three year
simichoh programs in NY. Again, it may be that not everyone shares your precise
take on such matters.  I will merely point out that one's very participation on
the internet - as we are all doing - allows the fair question, im kain, nosata
divorechoh li'shiurin, and there are many non-tv householders who - quite
consistently - would also not allow any internet participation. and still
others who might, also consistently, not allow children to participate in the
public libraries.  and should one respond that the internet user, or library
user, can closely monitor their employment against misuse, the tv householder
might well reply that he can do the same thing.  in any event, of sevorohs ain
kaitz, but not all your asssertions are going to be self evidently acceptable
to everybody.  
Finally i really must protest your characterization of my wife <..probably 
still won't be able to answer a difficult Sheila anyways, but..>.  Sure, Sheila
has strong opinions but to call her "difficult" like that, and in public yet.

Mechy Frankel				frankel@hq.dswa.mil 


 
     
     


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:41:45 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Re: No subject given


     
     It seems to me that the Rambam's Yesodei haTorah is HIS torah sheb'al 
     Peh version of Maase Breishis;
     
     This paralles the Torah itself which does not start with a Mitzvo 
     (e.g. haschodesh hazeh) rather with the Yesod that Hashem is the Boreh 
     Olom.
     
     I cannot imagine that Hilchos Yessodei haTorah is any less Torah then 
     say the Mikraos Gedols on Parshas Breishis - I.e. it falls it the 
     category of a chibbur on the same topic - albeit one that is not tied 
     to any single possuk
     
     Shabbat Shalom
     
     Rich Wolpoe
     
     
By the way, I've seen shuls where Tehillim IS recited prior to Birchas HaTorah. 

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: No subject given
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/23/98 8:27 AM


S But indeed bircas haTorah before learning halacha p'suka is a 
stronger ra'aya that learning halacha is a kiyum of talmud Torah (MB 
47:4, s.k. 6, "lilmod din b'sefer b'li ta'am m'varech") since if not 
then the bircas haTorah would be a b'racha l'vatala.
        -Herschel Ainspan (ainspan@watson.ibm.com)
     
     


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:53:06 EDT
From: EDTeitz@aol.com
Subject:
Re: who is a rabbi


<<
Can anyone tell me who I should call Rabbi? Choice A: someone who has
dedicated his life to Torah and yiras shamayim, learning parts of shas as well
as the parts of halacha which is relevant to day to day life,and has a kesher
with a rav who he can ask sheilos to, or choice B: someone who is in a three
year s'micha program in a yeshiva somewhere in new york , where he has a TV in
his apartment and partakes of the finest elements of American culture.
>>

While I have been following peripherally the discussion of who is worthy to be
called rabbi, this one comment struck me.

I think the writer is making a rather direct insult at Yeshivas Rabbenu
Yitzchak Elchanan, and I take that insult personally, as do others on this
list I am sure.  It is not my style to "flame" others, but this was totally
uncalled for.  If the author thinks that the right wing yeshivish derech is
better, that is fine.  Build up your case on its own merits.  Do not trash
another yeshiva.

This week we read Noach, and much ink has been used to discuss who was
greater, 
Avraham or Noach.  Noach was the classical "tzadik in peltz", a tzadik in a
fur coat, who keeps himself warm without impacting on those around him.
Avraham was a raging furnace, warming the entire world in the glow of HaKadosh
Baruch Hu.  However, Noach and not Avraham is called a tzadik by HaShem,
implying that on personal piety Noach might have been greater.  As far as
influence and the greater plan, Avraham was greater.

The insular yeshivish institutions while they might, and I stress might,
create more pious people than those at other yeshivos, and I am by no means
certain of that, having learned in many differently shaded institutions, they
do not have anywhere near the impact on the general Jewish community that
those of the more centrist institutions have.  You can keep your fur coat,
I'll take the furnace any time.

Eliyahu Teitz


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1956 22:03:15 +0000
From: David Riceman <driceman@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject:
misc.


> When I was learning for Semicho I had a hard time convincing a freidn of mine
> that there were "frummer" guys in yeshiva who did not have Semicho.

Aren't there practical nafka minas for those of us who are not m'fursam
b'chachma?
They're not related to piety, but to authority (there's a long Darkei
Moshe in 242
which lists several possible reasons for semicha nowadays - he doesn't
include
impressing the hoi polloi).

> In response to Gershon's question: I believe that a new shul would be
> permitted, for example, to make its decisions following a perfectly
> democratic vote, and disregard the rov binyan that halakhah requires of
> the kehillah.  The reason such halakhot are not binding, I think, is not
> because synagogues today have little enforcement power over their
> members, but because, as I have written, modern congregations are not
> kehillot.

<I accidentally lost Rabbi Clark's answer to my question, in which he
asserts that
a rabbi, new or old, has the authority to establish or change his
synagogue's practices>

> Kol tuv,
> 
> Eli Clark
> 

  Now we're approaching the nub of my question.  If we accept the
Talmud's presumption that
minhag is predicated of place, why should a rabbi (or congregation) have
any authority with
regard to practice in the synagogue? Should it not be determined by the
practice of the city?
  Admittedly a place may not have any established custom.  Now we have
questions of both classification and practice: what (halachically) is a
synagogue, that it can establish a custom, and what does it mean to be a
mara d'athra when a modern synagogue is not an athra? See H. Mechira
14:10-11 for a vaguely similar and equally confusing (to me) halacha.
  The context is which the question arose may be enlightening.  Over Yom
Tov, at a friend's house, we were discussing how to change customs.  I
mentioned R. Ovadia Yosef's opinion (make aliya) and, on my own,
suggested moving to a town with no history of Jewish settlement.  A
fellow guest suggested that starting a new synagogue would suffice.
  Rabbi Clark clearly agrees with that fellow guest (at least with
regard to behavior in the synagogue) and goes further in saying that a
new rabbi can totally reconstruct an established synagogue's practices. 
Not only does that contradict his own response above (which seems to be
rabbi-free), it contradicts all the tales I've been told by people who
were present at the founding of a synagogue, or at the changing of the
guard.  They all emphasise the overwhelming importance of the desires of
the wealthy members.
  What I'm really asking for, at this point, is not a statement of
opinion, but a citation of precedent (preferably Talmudic) for whatever
someone thinks modern synagogues are.  The gemara in the beginning of
Bnei HaIr mentions three options, public synagogues, members-only
synagogues, and rabbi-run synagogues, the second of which could be
relevant, but that gemara is most simply understood to refer only to the
assets of the synagogue, rather than behavior in the synagogue.

> 
> The Rambam states specifically that he is including all of the material in
> Yesodei HaTorah because it leads to Ahavas Hashem - which indicates that
> its inclusion is not meant to imply that it is Halachic, but rather it
> will serve to help one fulfill the preceding halacha of Ahavas Hashem.
> 
> YGB
> 

One of my Rebbeim held that there are passages in the gemara - he
specifically mentioned the medical passages - which it is not talmud
Torah to study.  He also held that studying Philo is not talmud Torah,
for the intriguing reason that Chazal must have known about him but
nowhere do they cite him (the introduction of Theodor-Albeck disagrees
with that).  From the former conclusion he deduced the falsity of the
assertion that everything which is not talmud Torah is bittul Torah.

David Riceman


Go to top.


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


[ 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 ]

< Previous Next >