Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 153

Thursday, February 4 1999

• Re: Avodah V2 #151
• [none]
• Hatzolah
• Re: Hair Covering and Textualism
• Re: Tefillah Betsibbur and keri'at haTorah
• Semicha
• Re: Avodah V2 #150
• Re: Hair Covering and Textualism
• Why Written Law
• Re: Avodah V2 #152
• Tefillo beTzibbur
• Re: Avodah V2 #152
• Hair Covering and Textualism
• Re: tefillah b'tzibbur
• Re: Avodah V2 #152u
• Re: Tefillo beTzibbur
• re:T'mimus and name calling
• Hatzolo and Eiruv
• Rackman/Morgenstern allowed weddings
• Re: missing data

>With regard to kriat hatora, I remember reading that the Griz, (Rav
>Soloveichik's uncle), held that kriat hatora is hovat gavra rather 
>than hovat hatzibbur, so that if he came late to shul and missed  just
the 
>beginning of laning, he would seek another shul to hear all of kria.  I
don't know how Rav Soloveichik held himself.
	I seem to remember a shiur in which the Rov described krias haTorah as
needing to be ki'nsinosa,   so that every shva na and shva nach and
mil'el and mil'ra was me'akev and needed to be corrected.  Apparently the
same shittah as you describe.
	Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

>believe it is Meseches Avos that talks about Rebbe Meir's learning 
>from "Acher", the Tanna turned apostate, Alisha ben Avuyah. Indeed, R.
Meir is reffered to many times in Shas as Acherim because of that 
>Rebbe/Talmid relationship. When asked why he did it, R. Meir responded 
>"Tocho Ochel, VeKlipaso Zorek". I think this is a valuable lesson for 
>us today.  We should never reject anything in it's totality if there is 
>merit in any part of it. What we are required to do is extract the 
>positive, and reject the negative.
	My recollection of that Gemara,  and I did not see it inside recently, 
is that the opposite conclusion is implied.  There was a criticism of
Rabbi Meir for having learned from Acher,  which was justified by the
"tocho ochal etc."  The implication is that a person of lesser stature
than Rabbi Meir should not take that risk.

Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

>I recently saw a Hatzolah member carrying his Walkie Talkie in Central 
>Park on Shabbos (where there is no kosher eruv, as far as I know). Is
this 
>something that is permitted. I understand that it is a matter of pikuach
nefesh for these people to have the walkie talkies on them at all times,
but does that extend to going for liesure walks in areas that do not have
an eruv.
	You say "carrying his radio",  but if you look at the relevant tshuvos
in Igros Moshe (there is a whole series on Hatzola) he makes the
distinction that it is "wearing"  and not carrying.  Therefore there is
no problem of hotzo'oh (even if we did not want to consider the principle
of "hitiru tchilasan mipnei sofan" with the attendant discouragement of
anyone becoming a member of Hatzolah if they had to stay at home all day
as a consequence.)

I was wondering if anyone knows the din in these cases. I think I recall
someone once telling me that hatzolah members should not even touch the
WTs on Shabbos unless it is absolutly necc.. I assume it is ok to carry
them to shul?
	Again,  please look at those tshuvos.  As far as "touching" the radio, 
I have heard them considered (Hatzolah does not have  *one*  posek;  each
local branch has their own) kli shemelachta le'heter,  so they could be
moved or carried for any reason,  or kli shemelachta le'isur which would
only allow moving letzorech gufo or mekomo.
	Then there is the issue of raising the volume,  charging the batteries,
etc.  You can see why most local Hatzolah branches require their members
to attend shiurim on hilchos Shabbos.

Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> covering their hair despite the clear texts. Now, hair is more covered, but
> a sheitl -- which satisfies the letter without the point of the issur -- is
> considered a preferable hair covering. More attention is placed on the

Mi gila raz zeh l'bonai?

How do you know what the point of the law is? I did not see ever in the
Gemara the point. As Yeshaya said to Chizkiya: You do what you are told -
meaning - yours is not to reason why. The Gemara simply says hair in a
woman is an ervah - not because it is attractive, because it is not
necessarily - a point made by the famous Aruch HaShulchan.

Hence, a shaitel is no different than a dress - are Bnos Yisroel rwuired
to wear Afghani-like clothing? The same discretion that applies to
clothing (i.e., clothing that technically covers everything cxan be lewdly
cut) applies to sheitels - no more, no less.

BTW, a common misconception is that Sefardi women are barred from wearing
sheitels. This is a an admirable sign of the almost universal acceptance
that R' Ovadia Yosef enjoys in the Sefardi Olam HaTorah. But, in fact, one
of his predecessors at the helm of Sefardic Jewry, R' Ovadia Hadaya, the
Yaskil Avdi, permits sheitels.

YGB

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

Modified From: Aryeh A. Frimer and Dov I. Frimer, Tradition, 32:2, pp.
5-118 (Spring 1998). Note 102. E-mail or Hard copies available upon
request.

Whether tefilla be-tsibbur is obligatory for men or merely a hiddur
mitsvah is a subject of some debate. See the sources cited by R. Isaac
Yosef, Yalkut Yosef, She'eirit Yosef, Part II, sec. 70, p. 330ff and R.
Isaac Jacob Fuchs, Tefilla beTsibbur (Jerusalem: n.p., 1978),
Introduction, sec. 4 (some of the sources cited are clearly not
conclusive and are open to other interpretations). R. Moses Feinstein,
Resp. Igrot Moshe, O.H. III, sec. 7, maintains that communal prayer for
men is a rabbinic obligation. This view also appears in Arukh haShulhan,
O.H. sec. 90, nos. 20-21; Saveinu Moreinu R. Moshe Zev Kahn, Resp.
Tiferet Moshe, part 1, sec. 29; Avnei Yashfe-Hilkhot Tefilla, sec. 6,
no. 11, note 16; and Resp. Mishne Halakhot, Mahadura Tinyana, I, O.H.
sec. 66 and 67. See as well the comments of Rabbis Chaim Pinchas
Scheinberg, Joseph Shalom Elyashiv and David Kornglass as reported by R.
Aryeh Zev Ginzberg in Resp. Divrei Hakhamim, O.H. sec. 6, no. 96.
	Many other leading authorities, however, differ, maintaining that
tefilla be-tsibbur is merely a hiddur mitsvah.  See, for example, R.
Bahyei ben Asher Ibn Halawe, Pirkei Avot II:5, s.v. "Hillel omer al
tifrosh min ha-tsibbur" (we thank R. Aharon Lichtenstein for bringing
this reference to our attention); R. David Zvi Zehman, Resp. Kav Zahav,
I, sec. 1; R. Ovadiah Hadaya, Resp. Yaskil Avdi, VII, Kunteres Aharon,
O.H. sec. 2; R. Israel Moses Hazzan, Kerakh Shel Romi, sec. 6 and 7;
commentary of R. Shalom Moses Hai Gagin, Yeri'ot haOhel to R. Samuel
Yarondi's Ohel Moed, Sha'ar Keriat Shema, Derekh Shelishi, Netiv Dalet,
no. 4, s.v. "VaAni haPa'ut" and Sha'ar Tefilla, Derekh Revi'i, Netiv
Alef, no. 23 at end; R. Joseph Elijah Henkin, Lev Ivra, pp. 158-159; R.
Aryeh Pomeronchik, Eimek Berakha, Birkhot Keriat Shema, no. 1, pp. 7-8;
R. Menahem Mendel Kasher, Torah Sheleima, XV, Yitro, addenda, sec. 5,
reprinted in Resp. Divrei Menahem, I, sec. 29; R. Benjamin Joshua
Zilber, Resp. Az Nidberu, XIV, secs. 37-38; R. Moses Malka, Resp. Mikve
haMayyim, V, E.H. sec. 3, no. 4; R. Fuchs, ibid. pp. 33-34. R. Ahron
Soloveichik, in a conversation with Dov I. Frimer, July 8, 1997,
indicated that this was also the view of his grandfather, R. Hayyim
Soloveitchik of Brisk. R. Aharon Lichtenstein stated to the authors that
this position of R. Hayyim Soloveitchik was often cited approvingly by
R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik as well. (Interestingly, R. Joseph B.
Soloveitchik also records that his father, R. Moses Soloveichik,
maintained that tefilla be-tsibbur is not merely a better mode of
private prayer, but an inherently different prayer form; see Reshimot
Shiurim, Sukka 38a, p. 184, s.v. "Dimyon." This does not, of course,
preclude the possibility, that tefilla be-tsibbur is optional). R.
Joseph Elijah Henkin, Lev Ivra, ibid., emphasizes, though, that even
according to this school, tefilla be-tsibbur is a communal obligation,
i.e., the men of the community are obligated to ensure that a minyan is
available for public prayer; only when such has been secured does
actually praying within a minyan become a hiddur mitsvah. 
	A similar analysis has been proffered by R. Joseph Rosen ("The
Rogatchover"), Tsafnat Panei'ah, M.T., Hilkhot Tefilla, 12:5, with
regard to keriat haTorah. See also R. Abraham Aaron Price, Mishnat
Avraham, I, to Sefer Hasidim, sec. 410, pp. 410-411.

>> Can anyone on this list prove that this man actually has a smicha?

What difference does that make? To the best of my knowledge the Chaftez
Chaim did not have semicha at the time he wrote the Mishna Berura
(he got it years later). Smilarly many gedolim who were roshei yeshiva
and not in the pulpit rabbinate or on a bet din never received semicha.

Eli Turkel

> but I think a child can learn about middot and proper
> behavior from, say, Dahl's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or
> Charlotte's Web.

And what about my boy's favourite Mr Toad? :-)

David

R' YGB asks:
: Mi gila raz zeh l'bonai?

I can understand why you're feeling so paternal. <grin>

: How do you know what the point of the law is? I did not see ever in the
: Gemara the point. As Yeshaya said to Chizkiya: You do what you are told -

I'm not sure what you mean. The gemara only says the point, and not the din.
"Sei'ar ba'ishah ervah". It doesn't says "Tzrichin li..." I agree with your
comparison to a dress, but I think it would be more accurate (as one poster
already did) to compare a sheitl to wearing a form-hugging skin-colored outfit
-- IOW, one that closely resembles that which it covers up.

Your comparison to the attire required by the Taliban is misplaced, as I
had NOT argued that more hair need be covered.

About Yeshaya's statement to Chizkiyah... Yes, "na'aseh" comes before "nishmah",
we reason about the p'sak, and not taylor the p'sak to the reason. However,
we still need to look at the reasoning. I don't think Yeshaiahu meant anything
more than that.

And in the case of two equally weighted piskei halachah, IOW, once the halachic
process has been applied and we still need to be chokeir between two shitos,
why not choose the one which better fits lihashkafasi?

-mi

PS: FWIW, my wife wears a sheitl to shul on Shabbos (when jugling the clan
allows) and at formal occasions, as I bow to greater minds than mine when it
comes to l'maaseh.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6080 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 4-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

>> But why do we need written law? Couldn't we get the same legal system 
with only oral law? What benefit do we get from the strictly halachic 
parts of the Chumash?
Any suggestions?
David Riceman<<

1)  Torah means instruction more than law.  As such it is NOT a Shulchan Aruch, 
it's more of a textbook or (lhavdil) a cateccism).  

2) Reading Mikro - even without understanding it - is a mitzvo.  I've ben a ball
koreh for about 17 yeasr or so.  At some level, (unconsious perhaps) the 
pesukkim have an intrinsice value, regardless of our consious understanding or 
our actions.  Krias Megillo is a form of pisumei nisso (and perhaps a from of 
Hallel, too accoding one man d'omar).

3)  Hafoch bo.  Etc.  The beauty of Torah is it comes in 2 parts.  Written and 
Oral.  (this is not meant as any apikorsus - I actually heard this from a rav 
from Ner Yisreol)  At least in theory the written is FIXED.  The Oral is 
flexible.  Remember Moavi and not Moavio?  One peshat I heard was that ploni 
almoni would not marry Rus because he was afarid that another beis din might 
overturn this drosho and destroy his future progenies' yichus (pen ashchis es 
nachlosi.)  I forgot already who said this.

The written Torah is a fixed document from which we can infer all kinds of drush
and lomdus.  That is part of Torah sheb'al peh.

4)  Look at the attention to detail a sofer must do to preserve the accuracy of 
Written Torah.  It might be unrealistic to apply the same stringencies to the 
vast body of Oral Law.  So in a sense, the Written Torah is the distilled 
minimum that must be presrved, the Oral Torah could be re-created or restored 
from it.

I hope this helps!
Rich Wolpoe    

Mr. Lefton wrote:

> `plogize if I  offended anyone, and reiterate that the point of my original
> post was not directed at the shul, but rather at a person who I had seen
> coming out of the shul who said that Hashem broke the Covenant with Klal
> Yisroel.

I'm curious what kind of reaction you were expecting.  Did you really
think that shuls should give an ideological inquisition to anyone who 
wants to daven there?  Personally, whatever I think of R' Greenberg's
odd ideas, absent a cherem from a recognized beis din, I don't see any
real reason to exclude him from the right of any other Jew to daven
with a minyan.  (Why do I feel like a House Democrat: however much I
deplore his behavior, it's still not an impeachable offense <smile>)

[and elsewhere Mr. Lefton wrote:]
 
> I recently saw a Hatzolah member carrying his Walkie Talkie in Central Park on
> Shabbos (where there is no kosher eruv, as far as I know). Is this something
> that is permitted. I understand that it is a matter of pikuach nefesh for
> these people to have the walkie talkies on them at all times, but does that
> extend to going for liesure walks in areas that do not have an eruv. I was

Seems to me that once he has the heter to carry it for pikuach nefesh,
that shouldn't interfere with his desire for oneg shabbos, i.e., walks
in the park.  Was he also pushing a baby carriage?

Or, he was a member of [gasp!] The Jewish Center or Kehillath Jeshurun,
both of which are near the park and both of which hold by the old 
Manhattan Eruv.  In fact, I've heard that that was a requirement for 
the hiring of R' Schacter: that he accept the Manhattan Eruv.

>>Since the Rav acted in accordance with belief that both dinim existed, I
don't understand how he ever could have felt that kavanah is a more
important criterion than tzibbur.
- -mi<<

Ein hochi nami.  IMHO he Rav felt his oseik betzorchei tzibbur was his heter, 
not kavono.

However, I am fairly certain WRT to my rebbe, R. Yeruchim Gorelick that he FELT 
that kavono was more important.  I'm not sure if he actually PASKENED so. 

FYI R. Yeruchim was a talmud muvhak of the Griz.

BTW I understand that the GRO held tefillo bizmano supercedes Tefillo betzibbur.
Many NYC kehillos daven maariv in the summer following Plag.  Some daven Mincho 
following sunset.  I know that GROnicks would prefer daveing bi'yechidus than 
attending these minyonim even thought they are someich on other poskim. 

Kol Tuv,
Rich Wolpoe

>
>Or, he was a member of [gasp!] The Jewish Center or Kehillath Jeshurun,
>both of which are near the park and both of which hold by the old 
>Manhattan Eruv.  In fact, I've heard that that was a requirement for 
>the hiring of R' Schacter: that he accept the Manhattan Eruv.
> 
Yes, but, I believe that most Rabonim are machmir to keep out of the 
parks being a karfef that is not fenced in. I studied the whole polemic
on the Eruv and even though it is grounded halachically (it was 
orchestrated by Rav Kasher) many Rabonim excluded certain parks.
In our area we have a solid Eruv and many golf courses our finessed
out. It has to be "mukof ldirah".

The halachic foundation is that the island is "walled". One can make
an Eruv in a walled city. The question is if the bridges tzuras hapesach
works. (Some hold that the arches on the bridges aren't good zturas 
hapsachs anyway) But, the karfef's - parks, gardens etc. have to
be finessed out. There are many who are mekil in a place like NY.
But, in our area it would teref so we have zturas hapesachs around them.

Micha, My impression is that neither mimetics nor textual should be exclusive, 
rather BOTH should be factored into halocho.  What's happened in the post-shoah,
acocrding to Dr. Chaim S, is that the mimetic is being largely ignored.  

EG,WRT nusach. the MB rules that the proper nusach is leilo l'eilo without the 
shuruk.  I am very hesitant to overturn the minhag haMakom, even though I 
concede his point IN THEORY.  Similar re: duchening when Yomtov falls on 
Shabbos.

There has been a tradition of poskim defending minhoggim.  I recently saw a 
defense of making Kiddush Rabbo on just 1 oz. of shnapps.

OTOH, there are minhogim that are highly questionable (mixed swimming?? <smile>)

Now on a historical (hysterical <pun>) front.  Professor Grinstein lectured that
wehn perouques (sp?) first came out, the poskim opposed them vigorously.  The 
wives prevailed (but I guess called them sheitls instead <smile>).   This might 
be the first succesful revolt by feminists against the prevailing psak <big 
smile>).

I heard a story re: R. Dovid Kronglass, late mashgiach of Ner Yisroel. A talmid 
questioned making neckties on Shabbos and R. Dovid "threw him out".  This is 
because ALL of the roshei yeshiva wore ties on Shabbos, so he should have 
realized that it was mutar, and he shouldn't cast aspersions, etc. How's THAT 
for mimetics?!

Kol Tuv,
Rich Wolpoe

>>>Chaim Brown wrote that it's possible tefillah betzibbur is "only" a
minhag tovah.

First, I heard in the name of R' Mosheh (I don't know whether that's R' Mosheh
Feinstein or Rav Mosheh Says <grin>) that tephillah biyachid is only a
b'dieved kiyum, and the ikkar kiyum of tephillah is only betzibur.<<<

And therefore?  Check the lashon haRambam as well as the din by eiruvei
techumin.  You are citing R' Moshe, but another approach is tenable based on
the sources, and may indeed have been the Rav's opinion.

>>>R' Chaim Soloveitchik held that there are two dinim in minyan: tephillah
betzibur, praying in a community; and tephillas hatzibur, the prayer of
the community. The Rav followed R' Chaim's minhag of standing with
feet together for chazaras haShatz, as the repetition is the fulfillment
of this second halachah.

While one could argue about what tzibbur adds to tephillah WRT the first din
(hiddur vs lichat-chilah), without a minyan there is certainly no fulfilment
of tephillas hatzibur.

Since the Rav acted in accordance with belief that both dinim existed, I
don't understand how he ever could have felt that kavanah is a more
important criterion than tzibbur.<<<

You can easily maintain that when you are b'tzibbur there is a chovah to
engage in tefillas hatzibbur (as the Rambam calls it) - however, there may
exist no imperitive on the gavra to seek out a tzibbur to fufill this added
kiyum!  Additionally, even if you are with a tzibbur, as I wrote in my last
post, the Chicago Briskers were reported on this list as holding this is a
chovas hatzibbur - i.e. 10 people have to engage in tefillas hatzibbur on
behalf of everyone - its not a din in each individual, so #11 and onwards can
learn during chazaras hashatz.  I have heard that the Rav did not hold this
way, but I throw it out for consideration anyway.  The kavanah avenue is a
different idea that I do not subscribe to at all, so some one else can answer.

-Chaim

> 
> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 23:17:36 -0500
> From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> Subject: [none]
> 
> >Many people seem to be discussing alot of rumors about one Menashe 
> >Klein, known to be the Grand Rav of Ungvar (currently in Brooklyn, New 
> >York). Before analysing what Menashe Klein has done, said or is believed
> to be have done and said, we should establish one basic fact, his
> rabbinic 
> >credentials. Can anyone on this list prove that this man actually has a
> smicha?
> 	Smicha nowadays is not like the law degree you display in your signature
> line.  It is awarded by many roshei yeshiva today for accomplishments in
> learning which would not have gotten the newly minted rabbi  INTO some
> yeshivas in Europe.  
> 	It is also well known that the "rabbinic credentials" of the Chafetz
> Chaim were nonexistent until he was well into his 80's (90's?).  In fact,
>  until the American yeshiva model of semicha (semicha program with
> curriculum,  tests,  graduation ceremonies, etc.) came along,  many
> semichas were simply employment contracts by towns agreeing to employ the
> named person as Rov.  
> 	So if Rabbi Klein was in fact Grand Rabbi of Ungvar,  and I certainly
> have no reason nor interest in doubting that,  then his "rabbinic
> credentials" are secure.  His level of Torah knowledge may be discerned
> from reading his tshuvos.  His involvement or noninvolvement in any of
> the recent scandals (kiddushei ketana,  heter meah rabbonim) are loshon
> hora plain and simple.  

===> I -- for one -- have NEVER questioned the scholarship and following
of R. Klein.  As far as I know, his teshuvot are VERY well-known and quite
fascinating to review -- especially in those areas where he disagreed with
R. Moshe ZT"L.  It should have been clear that the alleged Kol about r.
Klein was NOT connected to his Yedi'as Hatorah.
I am understanding from your additional statement that you have clear
information that R. Klein was NOT involved in those other areas -- for
whihc I am grateful.  [I note it in that fashion since if he WAS involved
in those areas, I am not sure that it would be prohibited as Lashon Harah
since there might be a to'eles in alerting people....]



> 	Please,  stop;  I believe I speak in the name of the vast majority of
> subscribers that these personal attacks have gone too far.

===> I have tried to avoid personla attacks -- focusing upon simply the
"facts of the matter".  as may be recalled, I raised the issue of whether
we should open a thread as to the issues complicating the resolution of
Agunot issues -- such as the fact that Roshei Yeshiva have *discouraged*
the use of the "pre-nup" agreement despite the fact that it appears to be
the most halachically acceptable way in which to *prevent* later aguna
issues.

--Zvi


> 
> Gershon

In a message dated 2/4/99 9:09:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< 
 BTW I understand that the GRO held tefillo bizmano supercedes Tefillo
betzibbur.
 Many NYC kehillos daven maariv in the summer following Plag.  Some daven
Mincho 
 following sunset.  I know that GROnicks would prefer daveing bi'yechidus than
 attending these minyonim even thought they are someich on other poskim. 
 
 Kol Tuv,
 Rich Wolpoe
 
  >>
Dear Richard,
In fact that was the psak I received from my Rebbe.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

"I have a philosophical dilemma I shared with one list member already.

Torah study is supposed to lead one to t'mimus and d'veikus. No?

Too much of what's been going on on this list does not evidence high levels
of
either. Even in comparison to other email lists, where the typical reader
is
far less observant and learned. Think about it, as a population we
represent
where thinking O is going.

Does this imply ch"v that Torah umitzvos are /not/ media for reaching our
goals as people? We can't take refuge in the idea that we're just doing
Yahadus wrong, because "mitoch shelo lishmah, bah lishmah" -- which
according
to everyone but the Rambam (and maybe the Gaon) means that if we're keeping
the letter of the law we should be getting closer to lishmah, and thereby
up the ramp in t'mimus and d'veikus anyway.

So what's going wrong?

- -mi

PS: Why the Rambam and maybe the Gaon? Because the Rambam defines MSLBL as
being about having many opportunities is to do one mitzvah lishmah, and
have
an epiphany. And the Gaon sees "lo lishmah" as requiring some form of
kavanah,
at least kavanah to reach lishmah."

     Thanks for speaking up, but on the basis of your philosophical side of
your question -  Rabeinu Yonah writes that Torah only improves ones midos
when he is mikabel for the Torah to be  msaken his midos.  It's not a magic
potion.  Too bad.

Moshe Luchins

>>From: LIPPYESQ@aol.com
Subject: Re: Hatzolah and Shmiras Shabbos
I recently saw a Hatzolah member carrying his Walkie Talkie in Central Park on
Shabbos (where there is no kosher eruv, as far as I know). <<

2 points.

1) Hatzolo's genernal heter to be docheh Shabbos.  I am not familer with their 
lomdus, but I do know they consult poskim regularly....

2) the Manhattan Eiruv.  I specifically saw a shut cited (see the Booklet on the
Manahatan Eiruv) that the Manhattan Eiruv could be relied upon ONLY besha'as 
hadechak.  I think most of us would agree that Hatzolo would fall into this 
category.

I have refrained from being mochiach unlearned people who carry in Manahattan 
based upon this Eiruv.  I peronsally do not rely upon it, but I would not assume
that one who does is ipso facto going keneged halocho.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

In line with a recent post, it seems that rather than (or at least in
addition to) excoriating Rackman/Morgenstern weddings, the most productive
approach and the immediate pressing need for the observant community is for
contact to be made with those rabbis so that an up-to-date database may be
created with names of the parties in English and Hebrew, birthdates, wedding
dates, names of partners to first marriage (with wedding dates).

This will permit this and future generations to accomodate our halakhic
concerns and needs.  As most readers are aware, the precedent is in Maseches
Yevamos where Bais Hillel and Bais Shammai respected and accomodated each
other's opinions failing which unions would have been unlawful due to
mamzerus.

Additionally, I would like to present for consideration the following
solution (ultimately to be presented in the appropriate fora by one who is
permitted la'asok be-gittin ve-kedushin)  to **some** of the alleged
mamzerus problems that may be created by Rackman/Morgenstern-sanctioned
unions. (I really, really hope this is not *Rackman's* solution, because I
write to solve a problem not create another.)

 I have heard it said that the sharp eye could pasul most weddings, frum or
not, due to deficiencies in edus, ownership of the wedding band and a few
other etceteras.  ***If this be so,***  perhaps a review is in order of the
videotapes, if available, of the first weddings of the Rackman-Morgenstern
couples with an eye to simply pasuling the first kedushin (yes, making the
be'ilos znus) for the reasons above-stated or any other reason. No kedushin,
no mamzerus.

I suppose this is like saying that Rackman may be correct for the wrong
reasons, but his conduct appears to promise to present us with problems.
Though we might not like what they are doing and believe it to be incredibly
twisted, it does us no good to declare the results of his handiwork mamzerus
if it need not be so. Punishment is not the goal.

Sincerely,
Noach Witty

David Riceman wrote:
> I've decided on the question I'm going to discuss in my next (Parshas
Mishpatim) parsha shiur.  I'd like to receive some comments from the
list.
  We all know that a classical apologetic argument (against the
Karaites) in favor of oral law is that the written law in the Chumash
(e.g. the civil law codified in parshas Mishpatim) is insufficiently
detailed.  We also all know that the oral law's codification of civil
law is exhaustively detailed.  That explains why we need oral law.
  But why do we need written law? Couldn't we get the same legal system
with only oral law? What benefit do we get from the strictly halachic
parts of the Chumash?

Any suggestions? <
Two, culled from "Internet divrei Torah":
(1) See RaShY on Vayikra 25:1 -- as pointed out last year by Phil
Chernofsky in his Torah Tidbits, the sedrah of Mishpatim, which fleshes out
the Aseres HaDibros of the previous sedrah, is an example par excellence of
the "af kulan ne'emru...miSi'nai" concept (as RaShY himself makes clear ad
locum, in his first comment to this sedrah).  Phil also added that the
final letters of "v'aileh hamishpatim asher" spell MaRaH, the place, en
route to Har Sinai, where we received these civil laws.  Thus, while this
sedrah is "insufficiently detailed" in comparison with the full civil-law
code, it is more detailed than the ma'amoros which were explicitely listed
as being stated to us at Har Sinai and ties the receipt of the entire code,
as part of Kabbolas HaTorah, to that place & time (viz. RaMBaN's first
comment on the sedrah, which implicitely resolves the conflict between the
two comments of RaShY); without such a sedrah, Oral Law could be considered
human legislation rather than (via the definition of the intent
encapsulated in the Written Law) the transmission of divine laws.
(2) The "halachic parts," as explained by Rabbi Dovid Green in his Project
Genesis d'var torah on Mishpatim last year, help us understand what G-d
wants from us as "anshei kodesh" (22:30): live as human beings in this
physical world, fulfilling the "halachic parts" in order to become
"kodesh."  Thus, this sedrah doesn't function so much as an Oral Law
synopsis as it does as a catalyst to improved attitudes and elevated
behavior.

Michael Poppers =*= Elizabeth, NJ

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


[ 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 ]