Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 032

Wednesday, May 2 2001

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:48:35 +0300
From: "Daniel Schiffman" <schiffd@mail.biu.ac.il>
Subject:
Music during Sefira--A surprising psak from RSZA


A senior colleague of mine told me that RSZA permitted attendance at
a classical concert during Sefira or 12 chodesh of avelut for a parent
(R"L). He received this psak from Rav Avigdor Nebentzal, Rav of the Old
City and RSZA's Talmid Muvhak. The reason is that only klei shir are
assur, which is defined as the playing of instruments for the purpose
of dancing and celebrating. A classical concert does not fit into this
category. Has anyone ever heard this psak? How should we understand
the rationale?

Daniel


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:16:03 -0400
From: gil.student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Music during Sefira--A surprising psak from RSZA


> A senior colleague of mine told me that RSZA permitted attendance at a 
> classical concert during Sefira or 12 chodesh of avelut for a parent (R"L). 

I heard in the name of R. Hershel Schachter from RYBS that it is permitted to 
listen to music during sefirah or aveilus for intellectual purposes, i.e. to 
study the inner workings of the musical pieces.  For this reason, RHS permitted 
attendance to a music class.  Depending on the person, a classical concert can 
be the same.

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:26:52 -0400
From: "Stuart Klagsbrun" <Stuart_Klagsbrun@ccm.agtnet.com>
Subject:
Enjoyment of Music Written for AZ


Moshe
> I seem to recall hearing in the name of the Rav Lichtenstein that it is
> problematic to listen to a tape of music that was composed and performed
> specifically l'shem AZ (e.g., church music)...

Would this include xmas carols? Santa Claus Is Coming To Town?
(Grandma Got Runover by a Reindeer?)


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:07:07 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: sinath hinam


In a message dated 4/30/01 9:51:15am EDT, dr@insight.att.com writes:
> At lunch on Shabbath someone asked about translating the above.  All the
> parallels we could think of, e.g. shmirath shabbath, imply that it should be
> translated "hatred of hinam [whatever hinam would mean in that context]".  
> Yet no one translates it that way.

> If in fact it means "hatred without cause/function" can someone think of a
> parallel grammatic construction in Rabbinic Hebrew?

"Matnas" Chinom (i.e. Rashi begining of Vaeschanan).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:41:47 -0400
From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
Subject:
Re: sinath hinam


Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
> "Matnas" Chinom (i.e. Rashi begining of Vaeschanan).

Wouldn't n'thinath hinam be a better parallel? Mathnath hinam uses the
noun mathana rather than the gerund n'thina.  Or do you mean that sinah
is used as a noun rather than a gerund?

I'd be happier if you could find an example where the noun and the verb
were the same word.

David


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:23:43 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject:
Re: sinath hinam


In a message dated 4/30/01 12:44:23pm EDT, dr@insight.att.com writes:
> Wouldn't n'thinath hinam be a better parallel? Mathnath hinam uses the
> noun mathana rather than the gerund n'thina.  Or do you mean that sinah
> is used as a noun rather than a gerund?

Comparing with Matnas Basar Vadam, a gift from a Basra Vadam, Matnas Chinom 
would mean a gift from "Chinom"  (in general note that Shavuos is called Zman 
*Matam* Toroseinu vs. *Nsinas*)

In any case IMHO the word "Chinom" is generaly meant *for* free (not just 
free) i.e. Zocharnu...Bmitzrayim Chinom, Vyatzah Chinom, Chinom Nimkartem 
(Lafukee that it is not the hatered of free as in Ahavas Chesed).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:42:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: jjbaker@panix.com
Subject:
Does the Torah include all of Maddah?


From: Harry Maryles [mailto:hmaryles@yahoo.com]
>>> Not really. AIUI it is a source of debate amongst Orthodox Jewish
>>> theologians, as to whether Mada was included in Torah SheBal Peh or not.
 
"Feldman, Mark" wrote:
>> Anybody know which rishonim/achronim say what on this issue?
 
From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
> The Rambam (around the middle of part II of the Moreh) and his son (my copy
> of Milhamoth HaShem is still out on loan) both say no.

Eh?  As I posted on the other list:


Harry Maryles wrote:
>> Not really. AIUI it is a source of debate amongst
>> Orthodox Jewish theologians, as to whether Mada was
>> included in Torah SheBal Peh or not.

Shlomo Godick wrote:
> Isn't it a meforashe Moreh Nevuchim?

The Moreh isn't halacha. But it is also in the Yad. See, e.g.,
Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 4:13, where he defines Pardes to include both Physics
and Metaphysics (loosely: physical science and Divine Science), followed
by Hil. Talmud Torah 1:12, where he says that Gemara (as in Mikra Mishna
Gemara) includes Pardes. So it's a simple syllogism: Science is part of
Pardes, Pardes is part of Gemara, therefore Science is part of Gemara.

-jon baker


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:48:46 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject:
RE: Music during Sefira--A surprising psak from RSZA


From: gil.student@citicorp.com [mailto:gil.student@citicorp.com]
>> A senior colleague of mine told me that RSZA permitted attendance at a 
>> classical concert during Sefira or 12 chodesh of avelut for a parent (R"L). 

> I heard in the name of R. Hershel Schachter from RYBS that it is permitted to 
> listen to music during sefirah or aveilus for intellectual purposes, i.e. to 
> study the inner workings of the musical pieces.  For this reason, RHS
> permitted attendance to a music class.  Depending on the person, a 
> classical concert can be the same.

AFAIK, RYBS' psak was much broader than that. RYBS permitted all music
during sefirah as long as it was not in a party atmosphere (e.g.,
he permitted listening to music while driving). According to RYBS,
the issur during sefirah and aveilus is "simchas m'rei'us"--happiness
deriving from interpersonal contact. Consequently, he forbade attending
ballgames, as there is excitement from being part of a large crowd.

Kol tuv,
Moshe


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:03:45 EDT
From: JoshHoff@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Avodah V7 #31- 5 Iyar on 2 Iyar


> I seem to remember there being a machlokes over moving up Yom Ha'atzmaut
> due to Shabbos with R. Ahron Soloveitchik being (surprisingly) contrarian.
> Can anyone elaborate?

Rav Ahron says that while in Eretz Yisroel there is a reason to move the 
observance up, in order to avoid chilul Shabbos, that reason does not apply 
in chutz la'aretz,and, therfore, Hallel should be said on 5 Iyar, which was 
on shabbos this year.. In his article about Hallel on Yom HaAtzmaut, in 
Gesher 1969,Rav Ahron writes that, contrary to the arguments of many (of 
late, listen to Rabbi Frand's tape on the subject), the actual date of 5 Iyar 
has great significance.The reason for this is that once Israel had 
international recognition as a state, Jews still in Europe in DP camps, etc., 
had a  place to go to, and , thus, many lives were saved.Therefore, that date 
can be viewed as a day of hatzalah. This may play a role in his insistence on 
maintaining that date, when possible.When Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook was told, in 
the 1970s, of Rav Ahron''s psak, he said that he personally felt that 
everyone should do what they do in Eretz Yisroel, because it should be viewed 
as the mercaz of the Jewish people.In YU this year, the Beis Medrash minyan 
followed Rav Ahron's psak, because Rav Shachter, who is officially the posek 
of that minyan, quoted Rav Ahron as saying 5 Iyar should be maintained as Yom 
Ha Atzmaut. On Thursday, davening as regular was held, without Hallel and 
with tachnun. When Rav Dovid Lifshitz was alive, he was the Rov of the Beis 
Medrash  minyan, and  he said the minyan should say both  tachanun and Hallel 
on Yom HaAtrzmaut, and when it fell duriing BHB, he had them say selichos, as 
well. Interestingly, in Mercaz Horav,Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook also said that 
selichos should be said on Yom Ha Atzmaut if it falls out during BHB, because 
selichos are for teshuvah, and one can do teshuvah on Yom HaAtzmaut, 
also. However, he said not to say tachanun.  


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:50:19 -0400
From: David Riceman <dr@insight.att.com>
Subject:
Re: Does the Torah include all of Maddah?


From: Harry Maryles [mailto:hmaryles@yahoo.com]
>> Not really. AIUI it is a source of debate amongst Orthodox Jewish
>> theologians, as to whether Mada was included in Torah SheBal Peh or not.

jjbaker@panix.com wrote:
> The Moreh isn't halacha. But it is also in the Yad. See, e.g.,
> Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 4:13, where he defines Pardes to include both Physics
> and Metaphysics (loosely: physical science and Divine Science), followed
> by Hil. Talmud Torah 1:12, where he says that Gemara (as in Mikra Mishna
> Gemara) includes Pardes. So it's a simple syllogism: Science is part of
> Pardes, Pardes is part of Gemara, therefore Science is part of Gemara.

I think this misrepresents the question. The question is whether the
content of all knowledge is included in Torah as transmitted through the
sages. The Rambam's psak is that the act of studying Pardes - which may
or may not include all science, that's moot here - is considered Talmud
Torah (would it merit a brachah?). So that one can contend, for example,
that according to the Rambam Moshe Rabbeinu did not know that Brownian
motion exists, but that when Wiener invented/discovered (another moot
distinction in this context) that it does exist he performed the mitzva
of Talmud Torah.

David Riceman


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:13:39 -0400
From: gil.student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Avodah V7 #31- 5 Iyar on 2 Iyar


Josh Hoffman wrote:
> When Rav Dovid Lifshitz was alive, he was the Rov of the Beis Medrash
> minyan, and he said the minyan should say both tachanun and Hallel on
> Yom HaAtrzmaut, and when it fell duriing BHB, he had them say selichos,
> as well.

I was in YU when Rav Dovid became sick and was niftar. The first YhA
that he did not daven in the beis medrash, there was a big tumult of
what to do. I remember being told (I not sure by whom) that Rav Dovid
did not necessarily hold that we should say both tachanun and Hallel.
Rather, the minhag had been established long ago (by X whose name I don't
remember) in the beis medrash and Rav Dovid felt we were obligated to
maintain that minhag. That first YhA without Rav Dovid, the ba'al tefillah
left the amud without saying Hallel so I went up to the amud and said it
(despite my personal hesitations about it in general).

Gil Student


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:10:23 -0000
From: "Seth Mandel" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Davening in Biblical vs Mishnaic Hebrew


Ira L. Jacobson: <The gemara has lehitna'ot bahen, while the siddurim
have lehanot bahem. Why did R' Seth not mention this?>

R. Ira is right. But I had a good reason for not mentioning this. I said
that k'lum vs. davar "is the more reliable yardstick to measure how fast
and loose the publisher is playing with the matbea' hab'rokho." Lihitna'ot
is not a reliable yardstick for the printer, because if you look in
the Tur, he had the girsa "lehanot." The BY does not mention that this
is different from the g'moro either. So at least some of the rishonim
had this different girsa, and we don't know how it came about. But, at
any rate, that is NOT the fault of the printer and no yardstick about
what the printer is doing to the text. K'lum, on the other hand, is,
since all the rishonim and early aharonim have it, and davar seems to
be an invention of some m'daqdeq hired by/followed by the printer.

R. Ira: < Of course, because when they do such a thing, we immediately
explain it away as "well, that word in Mishnaic Hebrew is feminine"
(or vice versa). E.g., kos rishon. That's a no-lose situation, isn't it?>

R. Ira, you are painting a grimmer picture than is true. Yes, there are
some words whose gender is not what we'd expect, and some words that
seem to be androgynous. There are in the T'NaKh as well (mahane). That
does not contradict the fact that the overwhelming majority of words are
unambiguous in gender in the Mishna. And I was stating that for those
words, in the mss. Hazal never mix up the gender of the numerals (e.g. you
will never find sh'mona 'asar b'rakhot, although you will from Israelis).

Seth Mandel


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:26:09 -0000
From: "Seth Mandel" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Chumros on Pesach


R. Elazar M Teitz: <This minhag (or, in deference to RYGB's query, this
hanhaga) was not restricted to chassidim; it was apparently the norm in
Lita as well.>

R. Gershon Dubin: <It may have been widespread, but not necessarily the
norm. The story about Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky not eating gebroks because
he didn't want to embarrass his host by not eating by him, indicates
that just saying "Ich mish nisht" would not have sufficed.>

RYBS said his family did not eat by other people on Pesah, but there
obviously were exceptions. The story is well known about R. Velvel going
to R. Chaim Ozer with some of his sons during Pesah, and R. CO serving
them tea with sugar, and R. Velvel holding the sugar cube in his mouth
and spitting it out when he got outside. He suspected some kitniyos
or something were used in the processing of the cube, but would choke
rather than insult RCO. Or am I misremembering?

Seth


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 15:23:39 -0400
From: "Noah Witty" <nwitty@ix.netcom.com>
Subject:
ahavas chinam


There is a saying that just as the bais HaMikdash was destroyed due to
sin-aschinam it will be rebuilt though ahavas chinam. I have heard this
quoted in the name of Rav AY"H Kook but was wondering if anyone has a
citation to the particular work.

Noach Witty


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:44:22 +0300
From: "S. Goldstein" <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
Subject:
hinam


> "hatred of hinam [whatever hinam would mean in that context]". Yet no
> one translates it that way. If in fact it means "hatred without
> cause/function" can someone think of a parallel grammatic construction
> in Rabbinic Hebrew?

matnas hinam is not a gift of nothing rather it is a gift without
"cause/function"

Shlomo Goldstein


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 11:01:53 -0400
From: "R' Y Kaganoff" <ykaganoff@barak-online.net>
Subject:
"chometz" pills and shampoos


[Emailed to A&G Atwood, but forwarded by Moshe Feldman. -mi]

...

On the subject of "chometz"-dik shampoos, medicines, and the like-
see the following reference:
Chazon Ish Orach Chayim 116:7-8.

He states that one is permitted to take medicines on pesach that contain
chometz even if they are not nifsal me-achilas kelev, but are simply do
longer considered "food", even when it is not pikuach nefesh. He does not
consider it a case of "achshivey" for an interesting reason- you want
the medicine, not the chometz- therefore, if there is an "achshivey"
it would be on the medicine.

It is also implied by his discussion that it is permitted to use shampoos
and cosmetic items that contain chometz, as long as a. they are not
considered food. b. the chometz is mixed in and cannot be removed from the
mixture. c. it is mixed it before pesach. SInce all three of the above are
the usual case, there should be no problem in using these items on pesach.

...

Kol Tuv
Yirmiyohu


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 14:07:26 -0700
From: Eric Simon <erics@radix.net>
Subject:
Ibn Ezra & Shamor V'Zachor


A little while back, someone made a comment (iirc) to the effect that Ibn
Ezra did not hold that "shamor v'zachor v'dibur echad".  If that is the
case, what is his explanation for "shamor" in one place and "zachor" in
another?

-- Eric


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 17:06:15 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Tefillot on Shabbat


On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 10:02:43PM -0400, RJJB <jjbaker@panix.com> wrote:
:    why is shacharit the way it is: the introductory passage talks about
: Shabbat being given in the Aseret haDibrot, so you would think the passage
: would be {Shamor/Zachor} et yom hashabbat lekadsho - but noooo, it's 
: Veshamru.  If the intro is supposed to be relevant to the passage, why
: does this one have a different passage, not relevant to the intro?

I think the question really is "How is 'Veshameru' more relevent to
'Yismach Mosheh' than the actual dibrah (in either form)?"

IMHO, and I realize I wasn't amongst the people you asked this question
to, the connection is based on "yismach Mosheh" and "kelil tif'eres
birosho nasata [lo]". IOW, not on the chiyuv of Shabbos, but on the
affects of accepting that chiyuv.

It is therefore closer to "beini uvein binei Yisra'el os hi li'olam"
than the imperatives of the diberos.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 21:55:08 +0000
From: sadya n targum <targum1@juno.com>
Subject:
Re:sinat chinam


> If in fact it means "hatred without cause/function" can someone think of a
> parallel grammatic construction in Rabbinic Hebrew?

How about ahavas olam and simchas olam? Also, olas n'dava and olas chova
would seem to be the same construction. In all these cases, as in sinas
chinam, it means not "a of b" but "a which is b."


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 11:48:31 -0400
From: Elazar M Teitz <remt@juno.com>
Subject:
Re: Chumros on Pesach


 
"Seth Mandel" <sethm37@hotmail.com> writes:
> R. Gershon Dubin: <It may have been widespread, but not necessarily the 
> norm. The story about Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky not eating gebroks because he 
> didn;t want to embarrass his host by not eating by him, indicates that just 
> saying "Ich mish nisht" would not have sufficed.>

The fact that Reb Yaakov had to use the excuse of not eating gebroks
does not indicate that he would eat in others' homes. I assume that the
incident happened when Reb Yaakov was away from home, and thus had no
choice but to eat out, but did not trust the kashrus l'Pesach of the
particular Jew in question.

>                             The story is well known about R. Velvel going to 
> R. Chaim Ozer with some of his sons during Pesah, and R. CO serving them tea 
> with sugar, and R. Velvel holding the sugar cube in his mouth and spitting 
> it out when he got outside.  He suspected some kitniyos or something were 
> used in the processing of the cube, but would choke rather than insult RCO.  

As for the Reb Chaim Ozer/Brisker Rav story, is it documented? It was my
understanding, as in the Chofetz Chaim/Reb Chaim story, that the offer
was not made when the offeree would be assumed to be one who was nizhar in
not eating in others' homes. After all, wouldn't such a hanhaga be in the
category of kabalah lidvar mitzvah, and thus have the force of a neder?


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 09:21:35 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Tefillot on Shabbat


At 10:02 PM 4/28/01 -0400, jjbaker@panix.com wrote:
>Each of the first three tefillot on Shabbat is structured around a
>passage from Torah.  Arvit is Vaychulu, Shacharit is Veshamru, and
>Musaf is the Musaf.  In each case, the scriptural passage is introduced
>by some prose describing it and its context....

>So why is shacharit the way it is: the introductory passage talks about
>Shabbat being given in the Aseret haDibrot, so you would think the passage
>would be {Shamor/Zachor} et yom hashabbat lekadsho - but noooo, it's
>Veshamru.  If the intro is supposed to be relevant to the passage, why
>does this one have a different passage, not relevant to the intro?

Friday night is Shabbos Bereishis
Shabbos morning is Shabbos Mattan Torah.
Shabbos afternoon is Shabbos l'Osid La'Vo.

That is how the Shemoneh Esrei's are structured.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 10:50:16 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Tefillot on Shabbat


On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 09:21:35AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: Friday night is Shabbos Bereishis
: Shabbos morning is Shabbos Mattan Torah.
: Shabbos afternoon is Shabbos l'Osid La'Vo.
: That is how the Shemoneh Esrei's are structured.

But RJJB acknowledges that point in his first paragraph. The question asked
was:
:> So why is shacharit the way it is: the introductory passage talks about
:> Shabbat being given in the Aseret haDibrot, so you would think the passage
:> would be {Shamor/Zachor} et yom hashabbat lekadsho - but noooo, it's
:> Veshamru.  If the intro is supposed to be relevant to the passage, why
:> does this one have a different passage, not relevant to the intro?

If it said the 4th diberah instead, it would still be Shabbos Mattan Torah.
More so, since the introduction describes recieving the luchos, you would
think that the reference to Shabbos given on the luchos would be more
appropriate.

I argued that Shabbos morning is Shabbos KABBALAS haTorah, that the ikkar
is "yismach Mosheh" and "kelil tif'eres". Not the text of the luchos. Since
"Vishameru" has more to do with the simechah shel mitzvah and the partnership
(covenental) aspect with "beini uven binei Yisrael os hi li'olam..." than
does the dibros's straight tzivui for shevisah as a commemoration.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 11:00:12 -0400
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
Ribbuy Kaddeishim


From: "D. and E-H. Bannett" <dbnet@barak-online.net>
> Re: The omission or saying of different kaddishim etc., R' Mordechai
> Phyllostac@aol.com wrote: <<I believe Rav Moshe Feinstein z"l also wrote
> against 'ribbui kaddeishim'.>>
...
> And a CQ's usual slightly twisted nit pick: I noticed R' Mordechai's term
> "ribbui kaddeishim" as quoted quote above. I thought that both the male
> and female varieties were banned by Torah law. And 'ribbui"!!??

Bapashtus there has been a shift over the last 100-200 years
In the old days, one aveil said kaddish at a time.  There was a real need to
try to squeeze in every aveil R"L for at least one Kaddish.

Nowadays Aveilim say Kaddish in unison - except for Breuer's, etc. which
adheres to the old minhag. There is really no need for aveilim to say more
than a minimum number of Kaddeishim. 

Also, regardless of who is physically reciting any given kaddish. I don't
see why an aveil cannot simply be "shomei'a k'oneh" and have in mind an
"illuy neshama" for every Kaddish he/she hears during the normal course of
davening.  AISI, Kaddish does not davka have to be recited by the aveil,
rather "active listening" with the appropriate amein yehei shmei rabba
should count, too. IOW to m'at Kaddishim bechavanahh, mei'harbei Kaddeishim
bli chavanah.  

Shalom and Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 12:24:27 -0400
From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com>
Subject:
Refining and Redefining Rules


From: Joelirich@aol.com
>> 1) accept the rule or paradigm literally as is, and pilpulistically make
>> everything fit.
>> or
>> 2) come up with a rule that is more accurate and inclusive with fewer
>> exceptions, even though it might not fit the words so literally.

> Doesn't this really describe 2 approaches to tsbp in general?

Redux: You can apply this to the thread of: "Kol passuk d'lo passak
Moshe Rabbeinu, anan lo paskinan."

If you insist on taking that rule literally, you have many difficulties.
If you are willing to follow the Chasam Sofer's interpretation, for
exmaple, that the esnachta is a good enough stop, then you can avoid many,
many of the difficult cases.

I don't know "why" it is that many rules are not stated so precisely
and need further refinement, but it does seem to happen a lot.

Here is another case:
The Roedelheim Machzor has Yotzros labelled "Shabbas chol Hamoed Pesach".
But if you read the fine print, you realize that this can be mis-leading
because they are also recited on Shv'i'i or Shmini Shel Pesach that falls
out on Shabbas. This is because the definitive underlying criteria is
that these Yotzros actully go along with Shir haShirim.

In fact one of my congregants asked me: "How come we said the Yotzros
of Shabbos ChhM of Pesach but lained Shvi'i shel Pesach?" The answer is
because the lable "Yotzros of Sh. ChhM Pesach" are a kind of misnomer.

Here is another case:
Think of the Haftara of Pinchas, Matos-Mass'ei etc. The names are
mis-leading. Really we have Haftoros for each of the three weeks. Of
course when Pinchas happens to fall before the 3 weeks it does get
its own Haftara. Otherwise, these Haftara "titles" can be misleading.
IIRC Korein is careful to make this clear.

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

Klal Gadol:
Many "klal gadols" are not universal rules at all - including this one
<smile>.

Shalom and Best Regards,
Richard Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 12:16:33 -0400
From: An Anonymous Chaveir <chaveir@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Is there a role for AishDas?


[I recieved permission to post the following to the chevrah. I want to
hear others' thoughts about what needs exist. -mi]

Micha,

Allow me to question the need for Aishdas. Do not take this an offense;
take it as a challenge (from a friend). Please explain to me why we need
a movement to increase our avodas Hashem.

What I see, is that we all need inspiration. Continuous inspiration,
if possible, but at least occasional inspiration. For that, at least in
Brooklyn, there are frequent shiurim that offer inspirational stories
and divrei Torah. Granted, these shiurim bore me rather than inspire me.
But that is more a matter of tailoring the shiurim to a different crowd.
Do we need a movement for that?

We all have different abilities and interests. I do not think that the
regimen of study that Dr. Birnbaum demands will fit everyone. Even those
who start off strong, will probably stop from exhaustion fairly quickly.

The mussar groups that R. Yisrael Salanter recommended are a very
difficult thing. They require baring the soul and listening to
criticisms. Frankly, I question how many people can seriously take part
in a group like that.

So, what, other than providing an opportunity for different people to
inspire, be inspired, and talk Torah on the internet, what need does
Aishdas serve to fill?

Be well,
...


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 14:59:38 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject:
RE: Is there a role for AishDas?


From: An Anonymous Chaveir [mailto:chaveir@aishdas.org]
> take it as a challenge (from a friend). Please explain to me why we need
> a movement to increase our avodas Hashem.

Just to clarify -- the reference here is to the purpose of AishDas described
in the AishDas charter <http://www.aishdas.org/charter.shtml>.  (I am writing
this because a frequent poster didn't even know that the charter existed.)
For those who don't know, the AishDas charter was discussed by both R. Micha
and RYGB at the recent Yom Iyun.  RYGB discussed his article
<http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/birnbaum.htm>, which talks about Dr. Nathan
Birnbaum's HaOlim movement.  The HaOlim movement is the inspiration for many
of the ideas in the AishDas charter--see <http://www.aishdas.org/sop.shtml>.

> What I see, is that we all need inspiration. Continuous inspiration,
> if possible, but at least occasional inspiration. For that, at least in
> Brooklyn, there are frequent shiurim that offer inspirational stories
> and divrei Torah. Granted, these shiurim bore me rather than 
> inspire me.
> But that is more a matter of tailoring the shiurim to a different crowd.
> Do we need a movement for that?

First, not all of us live in Brooklyn.  In Elizabeth, we do not have enough
inspirational shiurim.  Secondly, you yourself note that the shiurim bore
you.  Is the problem the tailoring of shiurim, or perhaps the entire medium
of shiurim--in a shiur, the listener is passive.  An igud (discussion group)
which forces the chaverim to actively discuss their avodas Hashem is much
more likely to lead to activity.

> We all have different abilities and interests. I do not think that the
> regimen of study that Dr. Birnbaum demands will fit everyone. 

I don't see why Dr. Birnbaum's (or even R. Micha's) view of the proper
regimen need be binding.  And I don't see why there need be a single
regimen--different people are inspired by different things.

==========

I do wish to pose the following question regarding the AishDas charter:  I
think that many of the people who write on Avodah/Areivim are idealistic
people who identify with the goals of the Charter.  But many more view
Avodah/Areivim as an interesting forum to discuss Torah and current issues,
essentially a more sophisticated mail-jewish email list.  Are there enough
idealistic people on our list to truly get a HaOlim-type movement going?  I
have my doubts.

Kol tuv,
Moshe


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 >