Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 007

Thursday, March 25 1999

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:04:31 -0500
From: mluchins@Zweig-Dimenna.com
Stereotyping the other guy

RMF wrote
"I doubt very much that the grouping is anywhere near as homogenous as
might be
ascribed to the yeshivoh veldt, where I do think a categorical grouping is
anthropologically appropriate."

     While I applaud the first half of the above quoted sentence the second
half  reminds of a time a few years ago that I was sitting in the dorm of
Ner Yisroel and an NCSYer there for the annual summer program asked "I
don't get it or all Yeshiva guys the same - I mean they all look like
identical penguins."  A friend of mine (a Shalavim guy) answered "from the
outside it is like looking down at an aunt farm and assuming everyone is
doing the same thing, but in reality everyone has a different role and is

Moshe Luchins

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 14:42:48 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Machshovo on Tefillo

I've alwasy been bothered by an apparent contradiction; our desire to restore 
the Shortim as in Hoshivo, and a desire to restore Malchus, as in Es Tzemach.  
Lich'ora wasn't Shmuel haNovi concerned that a Melech would undermine the 
leadership of the Shoftim?  And therefore a request for restoring the Shoftim 
would be in conflict with restoring Melochim?

A Teirutz just occured to me.  Shmuel was objecting to the upcoming rule of 
Shaul.  What was his major "faux pas"?  It was that he did not execute Shmuel's 
Mitzvo with care.

However, unlike shaul, Dovid haMelech did defer to both Nosson (ma'asse Bas 
Sheva) and to Gad (the ma'ase with the counting).  So the peshat of Tzemach 
Dovid, is that we request a Melech who exhibits these traits of Dovid, that is a
Melech who is guided by the Nevi'im and the Shoftim.

Rich Wolpoe

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 14:57:35 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
More on Basroi

Question:  Wasn't the concept of Basroi applied to the TB vis-a-vis the TY?  IOW
since it followed the TY, it was more Halachically authoritative?

(I think I heard this besheim the Ri Migash)

Rich Wolpoe

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:34:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonathan Baker <jjbaker@panix.com>
Where is shabbat?

While going through the list of relevant scriptural quotes for Tr.
Shabbat in the Albeck mishnah, I noticed that there are *no* quotes
from the Neviim Rishonim.  In fact, (if we posit a Deutero-Isaiah),
there is almost nothing between the Torah and Galut Bavel.  Was Shabbat
a neglected mitzvah for all those centuries of kibush haaretz and bayit
Rishon?  Holidays are mentioned, e.g., by the dedication of Bayit Rishon,
or by Yoshiyahu, but I don't remember or see any mention of Shabbat. 
Even the seventh day of the siege of Jericho is only an oblique reference,
and does not use the word Shabbat.  Has anyone seen any explanation for
this lack of reference to what is, by all accounts, the most holy type of

    Jonathan Baker     |  What is the 7th verse of the piut Shir haChodoshim?
    jjbaker@panix.com  |  The Nissan Stanza.

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 15:47:13 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Just What is Meant by Brisker Derech?

Can the various people who used this term come up with a definiton of Brisker 

Rich Wolpoe

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:13:57 -0500 (EST)
From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
RE: Just What is Meant by Brisker Derech?

Rich Wolpoe asks:
: Can the various people who used this term come up with a definiton of
: Brisker Derech?

In short, R' Chaim Brisker understood halachah in terms of halachah. Nothing
is allowed to become more primary. The only "first principles" are the
underlying halachic "patterns" (to borrow from computerspeak): gavra, cheftza,
pe'ulah, chalos...

The primary means of finding the patterns involved is the chakirah, finding a
dividing line between two opinions or two halachos.

See http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila/derachim.htm for R YGB's lighthearted
yet informative comparison of darchei limud.


Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 24-Mar-99: Revi'i, Tzav
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 307:9-15
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 54b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Shmuel-II 16

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:49:36 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Vending Machines She'ovar Aleihem Ha'Pesach

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
  Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info.

Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1
Content-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.93.990324164431.12800D@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>

The Question below was sent to me by a dear friend who is also a list
member. I am bcc'ing him the answer, but since it is an interesting
qquery, I thought I would share it after obliterating identification.

I propose that it would be muttar even d'orysa. I do not think the
products in a vending machine are even kavu'a me'd'rabbanan, since they
are not davar chashuv. As such, since rov vending machines are owned by
non-Jews, the chometz owned by Jews is battel b'rov.



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

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 14:48:27 -0500

If one does not know whether the owner of a store or vending machine is
jewish or not is he allowed to buy there after Pesach?  Do we say that
since it is a saffik drabnan so we can be mekal or do we say that since
one can find out it is not a saffek ? Please let me know.


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 18:10:48 -0500
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
Shabbat Hagadol

Two or three weeks ago, there was a bit of a thread on Shabbat Hagadol and the sources for designating the Shabbat before Pesach as hagadol.  Since there was still some time left before Shabbat Hagadol and since I was otherwise occupied on the list and elsewhere, I did not join in immediately, but with time quickly ebbing, I wanted to pick up the thread again.

What I would like to contribute is a very condensed summary of the discussion of Shabbat Hagadol contained in a wonderful book, Ikvei ha-Tzon, written by my grandfather, R. Akiva Glasner, son and successor of the Dor Revi'i.  The book, which discusses the moadot from both an aggadic and halachic perspective, flows from the following simple idea:  the day in the Hebrew calendar that commemorates the giving of the Torah is Shabbat.  My grandfather offers many proofs for that proposition.  Here are two that come quickly to mind.  "Va-y'khal Elokim ba-yom ha-shivi'i melakhto asher asah."  But G-d created the world in six days not seven.  All He did on the seventh was rest.  The point is that the world was not complete or even stable (since its survival was conditional on acceptance of the Torah by Israel) until the Torah was given, and the Torah was given on Shabbat.  "Ha-kol modim she'b'shabbat nitnah Torah."  That's why the Torah says that G-d completed the Creation on the seven!
th day, referring to the Shabbat on which the Torah was given.  

"Zakhor et yom ha-Shabbat l'kadsho."  Whenever the Torah commands us to remember some event using some form of zkhr, e.g., in connection with the exodus from Egypt, or Amalek, or Miriam, the Torah is commanding us to remember some event that the Jewish people experienced directly themselves.  But they never experienced the Shabbat of Creation.  So if we are commanded to remember the day of Shabbat, it must be that we are being commanded to remember a day that we experienced ourselves, i.e., the Shabbat of Matan Torah.  This idea is reinforced when one considers that Shavuot, the holy day that we normally associate with Matan Torah, does not, according to the counting of the Omer, even correspond to the day on which the Torah was given.  If the exodus was on Thursday, the fiftieth day of the Omer would have occurred on a Friday.  But the Torah was given on Shabbat, so Mattan Torah fell on the fifty-first day of the Omer, motzaei Shavuot, not on Shavuot, the fiftieth.  Nor does !
the Torah itself contain any suggestion that Shavuot commemorates Matan Torah.

Now consider the following questions.  According to the explanation of the Tur for Shabbat Hagadol, that it commemorates the taking of korban Pesach on 10 Nissan, which in the year of the Exodus happened to fall on Shabbat, why do we chose to commemorate the day of the week rather than the day of the month?  After all, the Torah itself referred only to 10 Nissan, not Shabbat or the seventh day.  Moreover, the significance of the day was that no harm befell the Israelites for taking the lamb as a sacrifice even though the lamb was an Egyptian deity.  But the people kept the lamb ready for sacrifice for four days.  Why not commemorate the other three days as well?  Weren't they still in jeopardy while holding the korban Pesach?  Furthermore, mekaho b'esor was a commandment only for Pesach Mitzrayim, not l'dorot.  What was so special about Pesach Mitzrayim that required mekaho b'esor?

In the light of our premise that Shabbat commemorates Matan Torah, i.e., the everlasting Covenant between the Jewish people and the Ribbono shel Olam, the answers are self-evident.  The date 10 Nissan had no intrinsic significance.  Its only significance consisted in its having fallen that year on Shabbat, the day destined for Matan Torah ("Va-y'varekh Elokim et yom ha-shivi'i va-y'kadesh oto").  Before the process that would lead to Matan Torah could begin, an act of faith and commitment by the Jewish people was required.  That act was the public taking of the korban Pesach in the face of likely retribution by the Egyptians.  What could have been more appropriate than for that act of faith and commitment to be performed on the day that, through Matan Torah, would come to symbolize the connection between the Jewish people and Kudsha B'rich Hu?  ("Yisrael v'oraita v'Kudsha B'rich Hu, had hu")  The appropriate time to commemorate that act of faith and commitment is therefore on !
the Shabbat preceding Pesach, not on 10 Nissan.  And since it was the positive act of taking the korban Pesach, not the passive holding of it for a period of time, there is no need to specifically commemorate 11-13 Nissan.  Nor was there any purpose in instituting mekaho b'esor for subsequent generations, since mekaho b'esor was purely incidental to that date having fallen on Shabbat.

It is also worth noting that this idea allows us to explain why there are three days in the Hebrew calendar that are specifically called Shabbat by the Torah.  One is the seventh day of the week, one is Yom Kippur (Shabbat Shabbaton), and one is the first day of Pesach (as in mohorat ha-Shabbat).  Each of these days marks a momentous event in the relationship between the Jewish People and G-d.  On Shabbat the Torah was given, on Yom Kippur the second luhot were given, signalling the reconciliation between G-d and the Jewish people after the sin of the Golden Calf and the restoration of the Covenant binding us to Him, and on Pesach G-d took the Jewish people out of Egypt, setting in motion the process leading to Matan Torah.  Because the idea of Shabbat is so bound up with the relationship between the Almighty and the Jewish people, it is those three days, and only those three, that are specifically referred to as Shabbat by the Torah, even though as a generic term, Shabbat ref!
ers to any day on which work is prohibited ("et Shabbtotai tishmoru")

Based on this premise, one can also gain further insights into the intimate connection between the mitzvot of Shabbat, korban Pesach, and milah, connections which have many interesting halachic ramifications.  But I leave that discussion for another time.

David Glasner

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 02:02:58 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
Re: Cholov Akum - Definitons

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Reb Alan Davidson:
>  >>Rav Moshe's heter allowing those who wished to to drink
> cholov akum are examples of this phenomena at work.  The problem, to some,
> including myself is when the heter becomes defined as normative halachah
> to the point that folks who drink cholov Isroel, wear tzitzis out, and
> grow beards are branded "right-wing extremists". <<
> In order to avoid a mis-understanding I think it's worht mentioning that  R.
> Mosshe's salient point is that he categorized USDA milk as falling into the same
> category as Cholov Yisroel, IOW both are free from Cholov Chazir.
> This is not to be construed as eliminating the gezeiro of cholov akum so much as
> a definition of hwere/when it applies.
> RDE/Yad Moshe can confirm.

You are correct that Rav Moshe classified commercial milk as cholov yisrael and not
as a heter to drink chalav akum. In effect he said there are two types of cholov
yisrael milk. He stated that a bal nefesh should be machmir - without defining what
a bal nefesh was. Furthermore he was insistent that schools should also use the
higher level chalav yisrael even if it was more expensive and in the 8th volume Y.D.
IV #5 page 161) he notes that a community (Toronto) which has been accustomed to
using the higher level chalav yisroel - while knowing that commercial milk is also
kosher - should not be so ready to switch even if there is a price differential.  In
sum - commercial milk was not viewed as a heter and there were/are members of his
family who utilize the commerical milk. On the other hand he clearly felt it was
preferable to use the higher level chalav yisrael milk for chinuch and baalei

                                   Daniel Eidensohn

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 01:49:14 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il>
Re: Hilchosoh kibasroi, again

Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil wrote:

> Hilchosoh Kibasroi:
> RDE wrote: <I'd just like to correct a minor misimpression which has
> appeared in a number of postings. The term hilchosa k'basroi is not found in
> the gemora. The Sheloh writes that it is a mesora we have received from the
> Gaonim. The Rishonim and Achronim  applied it
> to the gemora to determine halacha l'maaseh.>
> This may also be a bit misleading. it is quite accurate, as RDE writes, to
> say that the term hilchosoh kibasroi was a go'onic misoroh. it first appears
> in the go'onic work, seder tanoim vi'amoroim.   However, it is inaccurate,
> or at least confusing, to say that <Rishonim and Achronim  applied it to the
> gemora to determine halacha l'maaseh>.

I agree that my statement was confusing and can readily be misunderstood. Thanks
for the feedback.  I was focusing only on the issue of how the rule related to
the gemora (i.e., it was not stated in the gemora) but not how/if the term was
utilized for subsequent eras.

Regarding your historical view of the post talmudic period - wasn't the rosh
(4th perek of Sanhedrin) applying this rule to justify arguing with gaonim? Even
though he doesn't use the term he is using the same logic to allow disagreement
with the greater earlier generations. Similarly in disagreements between
rishonim - they seem to assume that they have every right to disagree with the
previous generations? In sum - my understanding of the rule is that the halacha
follows the contemporary poskim - even if it is not consistent with the
consensus of previous generations.

                                   Daniel Eidensohn

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 21:10:26 EST
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Takkanos and their reasons

Re: if the reason for a takkanah is bateil is it bateil,

>>>The only source to that effect that I am aware of is the
Tosafos vis a vis Mayim Acharonim.<<<

You forgot Tos. Beitza 30a d"h d'Tnan, ayen sham.  


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 05:28:40 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Re: Catholic Israel; Modern Orthodoxy

In a message dated 3/23/99 11:39:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

 On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
 > Isn't it generally agreed that takanot for which the reason was given at
 > the same time the takana was made can be changed if the reason no longer
 > applies? 
 Certainly not. The only source to that effect that I am aware of is the
 Tosafos vis a vis Mayim Acharonim. The GRA argues strenuously, and most
 Poskim follow the GRA's model that even if batel hata'am lo batla
 YGB >>
Dear R' YGB,
See the Magen Avraham on o"c 9 (hilcho tzizit) s"k 6 especially "dkevan shetam
haissur yadua, im nitbatel hatam nitbatel haissur mimela". My notes tell me
there is a khilat yakov on this and a piece by R' Schachter which I'll try to
track down.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 05:33:15 EST
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Re: Brisk

In a message dated 3/23/99 11:43:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

 On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Micha Berger wrote:
 > The Rav was enough of a philosopher to want to go beyond that. If a
 > given chiyuv, which appears to be on the cheftza is really on the gavra
 > -- why?  I remember the Rav once going back to the historical begining
 > of barter in order to explain a halachah in kinyan. And why its shoresh
 > is that of konei -- maker. 
 Perhaps, but, coming to an example I just discussed today in a shiur while
 explaining th Brisker approach, I was taken by complete surprise when I
 came to the Rav's Shiurim in Boston in 1980, by the term "kiyum" - to the
 best of my knowledge, a concept not employed by any other school of
 lomdus. As one participant in the shiur today said, it is a term that
 serves to deny spirituality or cognate areas validity in and of itself and
 "reduce" it to a manifestation of halacha. 
Dear R' YGB,
Do you note your participant's comment approvingly, disapprovingly or without
prejudice.  The language "reduce" it to a manifestation of halacha is
interesting but perhaps we need to define which areas of life are not reliant
on manifestations of halacha(maybe its just a definitional issue)

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 08:44:54 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Parshas Chayei Sara - Customs in Davening

With R. Doniel's permission, I am posting a piece of his dvar halocho wrt to 
minhogim and nusah.   R. Neustadt is very meticuloous with footnoting his 
sources which facilitates further research. Subscription info is below. 

Rich Wolpoe




By Rabbi Doniel Neustadt

A discussion of Halachic topics  related to the Parsha of the 
week. For final rulings, consult your Rav.



Which customs should one follow when davening in a shul where 
the nusach and customs are different from his own? While many 
people are faced with this issue only occasionally, others must 
contend with it on a daily basis. Often, the only available [or 
the most accessible] shul is one that davens a different nusach 
from one's own. It is difficult and uncomfortable for a person 
who is accustomed to daven in a certain way to suddenly daven in 
a nusach with which he is unfamiliar. In addition, it is a 
general rule that one should not deviate from the customs handed 
down to him by his parents and grandparents. But the halachah 
may require one to daven according to the nusach of the 
congregation where he finds himself regardless of personal 
considerations. Let us, therefore, examine the sources before 
resolving these conflicting demands.

        A terse command in Parashas Re'eh(1), Lo sisgodedu, is
interpreted by the Sages as Lo sa'asu agudos agudos, do not 
splinter off into separate groups that perform mitzvos and serve 
Hashem in different, somewhat conflicting ways. The Talmud 
discusses the nature of this prohibition. Abayei maintains that 
Lo sisgodedu applies when two different batei dinim in one city 
issue conflicting rulings. This makes the one Torah that was 
received at Sinai appear as if it were "two Torahs"(2) and 
causes confusion and discord3. Rava, however, does not object to 
different batei dinim - even in the same city - issuing 
contradictory rulings, since it is within the very nature of the 
Torah that different rulings will be rendered by different 
schools of thought, as Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel did for many 
years. In Rava's opinion, the prohibition of Lo sisgodedu is 
meant to discourage one beis din from rendering a split 
decision. For the reasons stated above, the Torah did not want 
different factions of one beis din to issue conflicting 
opinions, giving people a choice of which ruling to follow.


1 Devarim 14:1.

2 Rashi, Sukah 44a; Yevamos 13b.

Weekly-Halacha, Copyright (c) 1998 by Rabbi Neustadt, Dr. Jeffrey Gross and 
Project Genesis, Inc. The author, Rabbi Neustadt, is the principal of Yavne 
Teachers' College in Cleveland, Ohio. He is also the Magid Shiur of a daily 
Mishna Berurah class at Congregation Shomre Shabbos.

The Weekly-Halacha Series is distributed L'zchus Doniel Meir ben Hinda. 
Weekly sponsorships are available - please mail to jgross@torah.org .

The series is distributed by the Harbotzas Torah Division of Congregation 
Shomre Shabbos, 1801 South Taylor Road, Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44118 
HaRav Yisroel Grumer, Marah D'Asra.

This list is part of Project Genesis: Torah on the Information Superhighway. 
Permission is granted to redistribute, but please give proper attribution 
and copyright to the author and Project Genesis, and refer to 
learn@torah.org and http://www.torah.org/ . Both the author and Project 
Genesis reserve certain rights. For full information on copyrights, send 
email to copyrights@torah.org .

To begin or cancel your subscription to this class, please write to 
weekly-halacha-subscribe@torah.org or weekly-halacha-unsubscribe@torah.org 
as appropriate.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 08:57:24 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Sefer Yehosua, A theory

There is nary a mention of Shabbos in Sefer Yehoshua.  The march around Yericho 
mentions Bayom haShvi'i.  This is undestood to refer to Shabbos.

A thought occured to me.  Wouldn't there have been less chillul shabbos had the 
day of destruction been some other day?   While I do not have an anwer to this, 
it helped explain something else.

What caused the chayolim to die when attacking Ai?  What did Ochon do that 
merited capital punishment?

Here's a possible approach.  The heter for taking Yericho on Shabbos was due to 
it being a Milchemes Mitzvo. This reqired that the soliders were fighting leshim
mitzvo and not for any milchemes Reshus reasons,  otherwise they were commiting 
massive chillul Shabbos. Ochon, who took from the Cheirem, was guilty of chilul 
Shabbos, in that he was not fighting leshaim mitzvo - a capital crime! Perhaps 
some of the other chayolim were not 100% focused on the mitzvo, and thereby also
committed some form of chillul shabbos...  

Rich Wolpoe  

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 09:26:31 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Magen Avrohom 9:6, Kiyum

Sorry, RJR, but that MA doesn't say what you said it says. He specifically
differentiates between "takkana" vs. "issur" - the latter of which may be
nisbatel if nisbatel ha'ta'am - but not the former.

I thank you for pointing out the MA, for it caused me to realize that, in
fact, we can postulate that no one, even Tosafos, holds that nisbatel
ha'ta'am nisbatela ha'takkana.

Rather, the Tos. vis a vis Mayim Acharonim and Clapping and Dancing on
Shabbos and YT holds that where Chazal cited a reason for the takkana, it
now becomes similar to a mitzva ha'teluya ba'aretz: i.e., just like in
France terumos and ma'asros are not applicable, so too, since Mayim
Acharonim is teluya b'melach sedomis, it is not applicable, and since
Dancing and Clapping are teluyos in adeptness at fixing klei shir, they
too are not applicable. Thus, it is not a question of nisbatel, but
rahter, b'yesod ha'takkana - just as b'yesod ha'takkana of Ma'aser
d'Rabbonon b'zman ha'zeh - there are limitations on its applicability. The
GRO's contention, then, is that a ta'am is not a parameter in the
extensiveness of applicability. V'yesh l'ayain!

As to the concept of "kiyum", I think it is a brilliant (and useful!)
tool, but it really accepts the Chazon Ish's premise in Emunah u'Bitachon
that Halacha is the benchmark of all Avodas Hashem. I am not comfortable
with that position.


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, 25 Mar 1999 13:32:49 -0600 (CST)
From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Daf Yomi Pshat Revision

An Avoda member, R' A' Pechman, asked about havdolo; and another member,
R' E' Ginsparg, noted that in Pesachim 119b it is said that the kos of
Dovid is not one of kiddush, but of bentching. So, a little revision, with
one hakdomo:

Seu'da Shlishis does not require bread.

Same gematria, vis a vis Birkas HaMazon:

7 years:

365 Shabbosos x 2 Kos shel Birkas HaMazon = 730
10 days Yom Tov                           = 140
2 days RH, one meal (at night) per diem   =  14
                                            884 revi'ios in "kosi revaya"
Yasher Koach to the Me'irim!

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, 25 Mar 1999 14:51:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Sammy Ominsky <sambo@charm.net>
Re: Daf Yomi Pshat Revision

R' YGB wrote:

> Seu'da Shlishis does not require bread.

Since when? All my sources (Sephardic) say it does. I will cite them if
need be, but it'll have to wait 'till I'm home. Can you bring sources that
support this seemingly (to me) outrageous claim?

As a side note, without Seu'da Revi'it (melava malka), Seu'da Shelishit is
void as it's considered as if you had eaten your normal dinner, without
the intention of fulfilling the mizva of shalosh seu'dot, at least
according to the Sepharadim. I'll have to look up the source for that as
well, but I believe they're both from the Ben Ish Hai.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:56:22 -0500
From: Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu>
Modern Orthodoxy

In a private e-mail I was appraised of a situation in a small community 
where a rule instituted in a day school that all female teachers must 
cover their hair was greeted with a scornful response as being too right 
wing.  The writer surmised that "there is a certain tone
that Orthodoxy must adapt to the Orthodox world which suggests a primacy
to modernity which most Orthodox Jews find suspect at best.

Here was my response which I think merits wider exposure.

I think there is a difference between the ideology of Modern Orthodoxy 
and those who just identify themselves as Modern Orthodox w/o any regard 
to ideology. 

The thinkers of the movement are those who agree  as to the primacy of 
the Torah in all matters. Their only disagreement with the right wing is 
in how much emphasis or even acceptabilty of the best of western culture 
there should be in one's life. 

The sociological Modern Orthodox, OTOH, are those who put more emphasis 
on lifestyle and would put some of the arguments you've (the E-Mail 
writer) mentioned on equal footing to Torah arguments (e.g. sociological 
considerations).  These people are usually under educated Jewishly, 
strongly influenced by often highly agendized  university professors, 
various media... electronic or print, the entertainment community, and 
other of the surrounding culture whether it be positive or negative. 
They have precious little Torah input if any!  Because of their Torah 
illiteracy, they are unable to understand the right and wrong of their 
environment and often make illinformed and poor decisions which are not 
based on Torah values but on the morally relativistic societal norms of 
the day.

Of this latter group I think it can also, be divided into two distinct 
types. (Of course there are always those inbetween who are not sure how 
sincere they want to be and seem to vascilate between one point of view 
and the other.)
1) those who care little of Torah and Jewishness and are religeous only 
because of peer acceptance. These are for the most part altghough not 
completely lost souls.
2) those who are sincere but are ignorant because of a lack of 
education. These people can be educated and indeed often become right 
wing themselves, although not always.

BTW I think there are those in the Conservative and Reform mocvement who 
fit into the 2nd category as well, witness the split in the Reform 
movement now where the newly elected President of Central Conference of 
American Rabbis wants a return to Halacha. He is actually advocating 
Shmiras Shabbos, Kashrus, and Taharos Hamishpacha.  And he seems to have 
about half the Reform movement with him.

Perhaps we truly are in the era of Moshiach.


Go to top.


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]

< Previous Next >