Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 047

Friday, May 25 2001

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 04:12:53 -0400
From: "Ari Z. Zivotofsky - FAM" <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov>
Re: Siege on Yerushalyim and Sefirah (connection)

On Tue, 22 May 2001, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
> The siege around Yerushalayim during the first beis hamikdash lasted 430
> days.
> There is a machlokes Bavli and Yerushalmi if the walls were breached on 17
> Tamuz or 9 Tamuz. If you count backwards 430 days the seige either started
> Rosh Chodesh Iyar or Isru Chag Pesach. This basically corresponds to the two
> minhagei sefirah.

what is the source that the siege lasted 430 days?

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 16:20:57 -0400
From: "Howard Schild" <hgschild@hotmail.com>

From: Phyllostac@aol.com
> I find it quite interesting to see how such ideas become so widespread
> among the masses to go unquestioned by many and become thought of a
> standard / mainstream Torah as if cited in the gemoro......similar to
> other inyonim recently discussed here, e.g. re the classical position

What defines which are the generators of what is called the "mainstream"
Torah? [I am talking about after the time of the gaonim and davka
after/during the era of Acharonim] Do we decide the mainstream by simply
counting who has the highest population group [i.e. Sefardim, Chassidim
{and subgroups}, Lakewood loyalists, MO, etc ]amongst Frum Jewry ? by
proportion of Torah publications ? lack of chiddushim / similarity to
previous generations? who has the most Frum Jews accepting them as Gadol
HaDor ? or is it by proportional number of practicing Rabbis intead of
members ? ;)

I am also given the impression that a gemara is holier than a midrash,
zohar, minhag, ETC ? What is the basis for this ?

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 16:15:32 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Re: sherut leumi

In a message dated Wed, 23 May 2001 2:18:57pm EDT, "Shinnar, Meir"
<Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu> writes:
> With regard to the objection (stated in the name of Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky)
> that the opposition is to any form of ba'alut over the isha other than
> the father and the husband...

> RAA mentioned that Bais Yaakov forbids volunteering at a hospital even
> outside of a SL context. What is the difference between such volunteering
> and working at a hospital? Is that a function of the age of the girls...

> Lastly, some of the posters seemed to view that it was the mere
> association of the SL with the government that passuled it...

In his recent shiur on TSBP R' H Schachter spoke of not just paskening
based on the letter of the law but the spirit - He said this was mistake
of early reform, the "dry" halacha was with them (eg nonjew playing
organ on shabbat) but the "gedolim" knew better. IMHO when all is said
and done I think this is the common thread in many of our discussions -
"nothing is good nor bad, only thinking makes it so" (Hamlet)


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 16:41:00 -0400
From: "Howard Schild" <hgschild@hotmail.com>

There is a very easy way to see the Lubavitcher Rebbe's opinion on mitzvah 
tefillin, beis Shammai and Hillel, pigs becoming kosher... His mugeh Likutei 
Sichos explain each one quoting the full spectrum of Torah and not just the 
"mainstream" ;). In one short paragrah about opinions on the last topic, he 
even quotes R. Chaim of Volozhin among a list of references broader and more 
inclusive than anywhere else.

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 19:20:45 +0300
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Cheese Blintzes and Beef Wellington

Some of you may recall a discussion I initiated last year about 
eating milchigs followed by fleischigs on Shavuos. This comes from 
this week's Yated:

4. Cheese Blintzes and Beef Wellington
by Rabbi Moshe Donnebaum

A universally accepted minhag associated with the Yom Tov of Shavuos
is to eat dairy food. As we count the last days of the Omer leading up
to the forthcoming Chag, the aroma of various milchig delicacies fills
the air. The details of this custom vary from community to community and
family to family. Some begin the Yom Tov meal with dairy, following on to
meat, while others eat dairy for the entire seuda. Some communities have
dairy at the evening meal, and others by the Yom Tov day "brunch." Still,
others fulfill their duty to eat milchig merely with a dairy snack;
for example, a piece of cheesecake, and some have two complete meals,
one dairy and another followed by meat. There are many reasons cited
for this minhag [1]. And while it is beyond the scope of this essay
to enumerate them all, we will review a few, and also present a timely
examination of the requirements for separating between meat and dairy
meals as they pertain to the Shavuos seudos.

The Two Breads

In addition to the Korban Mussaf sacrifice brought onto the Mizbeach on
Shavuos, was the Shtei Halechem, the two breads. These were brought from
the new wheat crop and were baked to the dimensions of seven hand-breadths
long, four and a half hand-breadths wide and four 'fingers' high. After
performing the required tenufos, or wavings, one of the breads was
eaten by the Kohen Gadol and the other was divided and eaten by the
twenty-four Mishmaros.

Since the destruction of the second Bais HaMikdash, we are, unfortunately,
not able to offer any sacrifices. However, as with other Yomim Tovim,
certain minhagim have developed as a reminder of the sacrifices that
were brought in days of old. The Rema [2] and the Mateh Moshe [3] connect
the custom of eating dairy on Shavuos to the Shtei Halechem. Since bread
used with a dairy meal may not be eaten with a meat meal, eating meals
of both dairy and meat on Shavuos necessitates two breads. Accordingly,
one could either begin the meal with dairy and then switch to meat,
bringing to the table a second loaf of bread as required (plus changing
the tablecloth and settings), or commemorate the Shtei Halechem with
two separate meals, the first dairy and the second meat.

The Angels Ate Dairy and Meat

When Moshe Rabbeinu appeared in Shamayim to receive the Torah on behalf of
the Bnei Yisroel, the Midrash tells us that the angels said before Hashem
"Such a precious treasure which you have stored beneath your Holy Throne
for nine hundred and twenty four generations, why do you intend giving
it to mere mortals of flesh and blood?" Hashem replied to them: "You
are not worthy of receiving the Torah because you ate Basar Bechalav in
Avraham Avinu's tent when you were served cream, milk and meat. Yet even
a child of the Bnei Yisroel who arrives home from school and is served
dairy followed by meat makes sure to wash his hands in between [4]."

The Be'er Heiteiv, in his commentary to the Shulchan Aruch [5] cites this
Midrash as another reason for eating dairy on Shavuos. We see that Bnei
Yisroel were worthy of receiving the Torah because of their scrupulous
attention to the mitzvah of Basar Bechalav. Therefore on Shavuos, the
Yom Tov of receiving the Torah, we customarily show the distinction
between dairy and meat.

According to this line of reasoning, it would not be necessary to have
a special dairy bread meal or to begin a bread meal with dairy. Rather,
an act which demonstrates the separation between dairy and meat would
suffice. One might eat a dairy snack, rinse and clean one's mouth, wash
one's hands (as detailed in the following section) and according to some
Poskim (also detailed below) recite a beracha achrona or Birchas Hamazon
and then commence a meat meal.

Requirements Between Dairy and Meat

Having now considered two reasons for eating dairy and then meat at our
Shavuos seudos, it is fitting at this point to review and examine the
halachos that govern our conduct when eating these two types of foods

Many have the custom of waiting half an hour after eating dairy foods
(other than hard cheese which has the same stringency as meat) before
eating meat. This minhag is based on a Zohar, which prohibits consuming
milk and meat within the same hour and assumes that the hour mentioned is
an approximation [6]. Although the commentators on the Shulchan Aruch note
this minhag, and consider it praiseworthy, there is no direct reference to
this custom in either the Talmud or the Shulchan Aruch. On the contrary,
the Shulchan Aruch [7] states that one may eat meat straight after dairy
provided that one is careful to perform the following actions:

a) Rinsing one's mouth-one may not eat meat after dairy without rinsing
one's mouth in between to wash away any dairy residue.

b) Cleansing one's mouth-one may not eat meat after dairy without first
cleansing one's mouth by eating a bulky food, e.g. a fruit or a cracker,
with the exception of flour, dates and green vegetables.

c) Washing one's hands-one who eats cheese or other dairy food must check
or preferably wash his hands before eating meat, to cleanse them of any
cheese or food adhering to them. (Concerning one who ate using cutlery
or drank a cup of milk, .ie., his hands did not come into contact with
the food, the Badei Hashulchan [8] cites a dispute among the Poskim and
concludes that one should preferably abide by the more stringent view
and wash their hands).

The question arises as to whether these procedures are necessary when
one adheres to the custom of waiting half an hour after dairy before
eating meat. Let us first examine the halacha in the converse case of
eating milk after meat. The Poskim agree that when one has the minhag to
wait six hours between meat and milk (as is the custom of the majority
of Ashkenazic Jewry nowadays), he is not required to rinse and cleanse
his mouth nor wash his hands in between. However, we find a dispute
concerning those communities, mainly of Dutch origin, who continue
to follow the lenient opinion mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch [9] of
reciting a beracha achrona after eating meat and then waiting one hour
before eating milk [10]. Contemporary Halachic authorities seem to follow
the more stringent view and require the rinsing, cleansing and washing
[11]. However, in the case of those who wait half an hour after dairy
before eating meat, the Poskim [12] are more lenient (if one ate milk
or soft cheese, eg., cottage cheese) in this respect, unless one knows
of any milk residue in his mouth or on his hands.

There is another issue that arises particularly on Shavuos when one eats
dairy and meat meals consecutively. Again, examining the converse case
first, when one wants to eat a dairy meal after a meat meal, besides
waiting the necessary time, one is required to make a beracha achrona
that separates the two acts of eating the distinct meals. But when the
milk meal comes before the meat, even though there is no requirement to
wait in between (although as we have mentioned, some wait half an hour)
the Poskim dispute the necessity of separating the meals with a beracha
achrona. In light of this dispute, we find the two customs mentioned at
the outset: Presumably those who eat two complete meals on Shavuos and
bentch in between, hold that a beracha achrona is indeed required to
separate the milk meal from the ensuing meat meal. But those who begin
with dairy and then continue the meal with meat without an intervening
beracha achrona evidently hold otherwise [13].

Bnei Yisroel Were Unable to Eat Meat

Of course, the need to separate between milk and meat on Shavuos is
completely circumvented by those who celebrate with a dairy-only meal.
What, then, is their motivation?

Rav Sadya Gaon [14] writes that the Ten Commandments, given to Moshe
Rabbeinu on Har Sinai, contained within them all 613 mitzvos. In
effect, the Bnei Yisroel of that generation, upon receiving the Ten
Commandments, were obligated in all of the mitzvos, both positive and
negative. Among the 365 prohibitions, are the many mitzvos dealing
with kashrus. For example, one is forbidden to eat part of an animal
that was not slaughtered or to partake of the flesh of an animal whose
blood was not drained from it. Cooking kosher food in utensils that have
previously been infused with non-kosher flavor, is also forbidden. After
Matan Torah, Bnei Yisroel could not have eaten the meat they possessed
because it was not suitably prepared to their new standards. To prepare
kosher meat requires checking the knife, slaughtering, removing the fats,
soaking, salting and acquiring new utensils for the cooking process. All
this would have taken much time. Thus, it is understood that they ate
dairy. So, too, many have the minhag to commemorate Matan Torah by eating
a completely dairy meal as our ancestors did [15].

The commentators voice a further concern in relation to the dairy-only
custom. We know that a custom cannot and may not override a halacha. One
of the halachos related to the mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov is the
requirement to eat meat during the Yom Tov Seuda [16]. However, the
Shaagos Aryeh [17] concludes that there is no mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov
on the first night of Yom Tov. Thus, even though the Bnei Yisroel were
still allowed to partake of their "former" food at night, and a dairy-only
meal by day would seem a more accurate commemoration of their conduct,
the ruling of the Shaagos Aryeh may be the factor motivating those who
eat a dairy-only meal on the first night.

Milk and Torah

In conclusion, we mention a final reason pertaining to the custom of
eating dairy on Shavuos. Just as a human being cannot physically survive
without food, likewise the soul of every person needs to be continually
nourished-not with material supplies, but with Torah. Torah is the "mazon
ruchni" spiritual food, for the neshama. Torah is also the essential
ingredient to conquer the evil inclination as the Gemara [18] states:

"I created the Yetzer Hora and I created the antidote to be able to
tackle and overpower one's Yetzer Hora [19]."

When a child is born, its sole source of nourishment is milk. We also
find that Torah is compared to milk as the possuk states in Shir HaShirim
[20] "Honey and Milk beneath your tongue [21]." Says the Eliyahu Rabba,
on Shavuos we eat milchig to remind us that in the same way that a child
cannot survive and grow without milk, so too every person must realise
that he cannot exist without Torah.

We say each evening in the beracha preceding Krias Shema: "For they are
our life and our length of days." "Our life" in this world in our day
to day growth, refinement of character and battle with the Yetzer Hora;
"and our length of days" in the world to come where our nourished neshama
reaps the reward. This is the message one should contemplate while dining
on those cheese blintzes.



1 See Mekadesh Yisroel No. 70, Ner L'Meah on Chag HaShavuos
2 Orach Chaim 494:3.
3 No. 692.
4 Midrash Shochar Tov 8, Pesikta Rabbasi, end chapter 26, see Shita
  Mekubetzes to Bechoros 6b, Bircas Peretz, Parshas Vayeira, Beis HaLevi
  Parshas Yisro.
5 Shulchan Aruch 494:8.
6 For an elaboration of this custom see Pri Hadar on Sifsei Daas 89:29.
7 89:2.
8 89:43.
9 Rema, Yoreh Deah 89:2.
10 See Y.D. 89:2, Taz 89:2; Mishbetzos Zahav, 89:2, as opposed to Shach
   89:2, and Chochmas Adam 40:13.
11 Concerning Jews of German origin who follow their tradition of waiting
   3 hours between meat and milk, they have the same status as those who
   wait 6 hours. See Rav M. Stern quoted in Pischei Halacha, page 112,
   Question 4.
12 See Rabbi M. Stern quoted in Pischei Halacha page 113, Question 8,
   Teshuvos Birchas Shamayim (Kasho).
13 Furthermore, after eating meat, besides reciting the beracha achrona,
   one must also have decided to conclude the meal. Merely saying a
   beracha achrona with the intention to shortly begin a dairy meal is
   not sufficient - (see Taz 89:3). However, those who follow the custom
   of eating two distinct meals on Shavuos may recite a beracha achrona
   or Birchas Hamazon despite their intention to shortly begin a meat
   meal. See Pri Migadim, Y.D., M.Z. 89:3, Badei Hashulchan, tzionim 160.
14 Cited in Rashi, Shemos 24:12, Ibn Ezra, Shemos 20:1. As well as his
   Sefer Hamitzvos, Rav Sadya Gaon also compiled a Sefer Azharos where
   he explains how all 613 mitzvos are included in the Ten Commandments.
15 Mishna Berura 494:12 citing what he once heard from a Gadol. A related
   reason for the dairy only minhag is brought down in Imrei Pinchos,
   Shabbos U'Moadim No 315-321, which states that it was not possible
   to prepare kosher meat because it was Shabbos and slaughtering is
16 See Beis Yosef, O.C. 529, M.A. 529:3 and Darchei Teshuva, Y.D. 89:19.
17 No. 68.
18 Kiddushin 30b.
19 See Nefesh Hachaim, Part 4 chap. 22 - 26 where he elaborates on how
   Torah is the very source of all resistance and the sustaining force of
   the universe. One who studies Torah is not merely educating himself
   and nourishing his own soul, he is also activating a force that
   galvanizes the entire cosmos
20 2:11.
21 See Midrash Rabba, Devarim Par. 7.

Carl M. Sherer, Adv. Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751 Fax 972-2-625-0461 eFax (US) 1-253-423-1459
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 08:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
RE: Confessions of an Unrepentant Peacenik

--- Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>> they were stopped. When the Imams realize that they have made
>> a serious theological mistake they will make these suicide bombers go
>> away.

> Why do you assume they made a theological mistake? Their actions make
> perfect sence within their theology.

The Koran is open to interpretation which is the basis for endorsing
terrorism. I've heard Islamic Clerics (in the minority to be sure) who
have stated that all this terrorism is a misreading of the Koran. If
the Imams see that ultimately all of their people stand to be destroyed,
they will rethink.

Our own people have used to the Torah as proof for diametricly opposite
arguments. Look at Neturei Karta and Meir Kahane.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 14:28:43 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Administrivia: Confessions of an Unrepentant Peacenik

My apologies for the misdirected mail. That last one was submitted to Areivim.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 19:41:02 +0300
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Birchos ha-Shachar on Shavuos Morning

This is also from the Yated:

7. Halacha Discussion:

Birchos ha-Shachar on Shavuos Morning
by Rabbi Doniel Neustadt

The widespread custom of staying awake the first night of Shavuos to
study Torah presents a halachic problem-what to do about four of the
morning blessings, Birchos ha-shachar, which cannot be recited unless
one slept during the night. The other sixteen blessings may be recited
as usual(1), but the following four blessings present a problem:

Al netilas yadayim-The Rishonim offer two basic reasons for the Talmudic
law(2) of washing our hands in the morning and then reciting the proper

The Rosh tells us that washing is necessary because a person's hands
move around in his sleep and will inevitably touch some unclean part of
the body.

The Rashba says that since each one of us becomes a biryah chadashah-a
"new person"-each morning, we must sanctify ourselves anew in preparation
to serve Hashem. This sanctification is similar to that of a kohen who
washes his hands before performing the avodah in the Beis ha-Mikdash.

[In addition to these two reasons, there is still another reason for
washing one's hands in the morning-because of ruach ra'ah, the spirit
of impurity that rests on one's body at night and does not leave the
hands until water is poured over them three times3. Indeed, touching
various limbs or organs of the body is prohibited before hand-washing,
due to the danger which is caused by the spirit of impurity(4). This
third reason alone, however, is insufficient to warrant a blessing(5),
since a blessing is never recited on an act which is performed in order
to ward off danger(6).]

Does one who remains awake all night long need to wash his hands in the
morning? If we follow the Rosh's reason, then washing is not necessary,
for as long as one remains awake he knows that his hands remained
clean. If we follow the Rashba's reason, however, washing may be required,
since in the morning one becomes a "new person," whether he slept or
not(7). [In addition, it is debatable if the spirit of impurity that rests
on the hands is caused by the nighttime hours-regardless of whether or
not one slept-or if it rests upon the hands only during sleep.(8)]

Since this issue remains unresolved, the Rama suggests a compromise:
washing is indeed required, as the Rashba holds, but a blessing is
not recited, in deference to the view of the Rosh. Not all the poskim
agree with the Rama's compromise. In their view, the blessing should be
recited(9). Since we again face a difference of opinion, it is recommended
that one of the following options be exercised:

Immediately after alos amud ha-shachar, one should relieve himself and
then wash his hands, followed by Al netilas yadayim and Asher yatzar. In
this case, all poskim agree that washing is required and a blessing is
recited(10). This is the preferred option.

One should listen-with intent to be yotzei-as another person, who did
sleep, recites the blessing.

Birchos ha-Torah-The poskim debate whether one who remains awake
the entire night(11) is required to recite Birchos ha-Torah the next
morning. Some authorities do not require it, since they hold that the
previous day's blessings are still valid. In their view, unless a major
interruption-such as a night's sleep-occurs, yesterday's blessings remain
in effect. Others hold that Birchos ha-Torah must be said each morning
regardless of whether or not one slept, similar to all other Birchos
ha-shachar which are said in the morning, whether one slept or not.
According to the Mishnah Berurah(12), this issue remains unresolved and
the following options are recommended:

One should listen-with intent to be yotzei-as an-other person, who
did sleep, recites the blessing. This should be followed by each person
reciting yevorechecha and eilu devarim, so that the blessings are followed
immediately by some Torah learning.

While reciting the second blessing before Kerias Shema-Ahavah Rabbah-one
should have the intention to be yotzei Birchos ha- Torah as well. In
this case, he must learn some Torah immediate-ly after Shemoneh Esrei.

There are two other options available:

The poskim agree that if one slept (at least half an hour) during the
day of erev Shavuos, he may recite Birchos ha-Torah on Shavuos morning
even though he did not sleep at all during the night(13).

While reciting Birchos ha-Torah on erev Shavuos, one may clearly stipulate
that his blessings should be in effect only until the next morning. In
this case, he may recite the blessings on Shavuos morning although he
did not sleep(14).

If one did not avail himself of any of these options and Birchos ha-Torah
were not recited, one may recite them upon awakening from his sleep on
Shavuos morning (after davening).

Elokai neshamah and ha-Ma'avir sheinah-Here, too, there are differences of
opinion among the poskim as to whether one who remains awake throughout
the night should recite these blessings. The Mishnah Berurah(15) rules
that it is best to hear these blessings from another person who slept.
If no such person is available, many poskim rule that these blessings
may be recited even by one who did not sleep(16).

In actual practice, what should we do?

As stated earlier, all poskim agree that the other sixteen morning
blessings may be recited by one who did not sleep at all during the
night. Nevertheless, it has become customary in some shuls that one who
slept recites all twenty morning blessings for the benefit of all those
who did not sleep. Two details must be clarified concerning this practice:

Sometimes it is difficult to clearly hear every word of the blessing being
recited. [Missing one word can sometimes invalidate the blessing.] If
that happens, it is important to remember that sixteen of the twenty
blessings may be recited by each individual whether he slept or not,
as outlined above.

The sixteen blessings which may be recited by each individual should not
be heard from another person unless a minyan is present. This is since
some poskim hold that the obligation of Birchos ha-shachar is discharged
only by hearing them from another person in the presence of a minyan(17).

Rabbi Neustadt is Rav of Young Israel in Cleveland Heights. He may be
reached at 216-321-4635 or by fax at 216-321-5687.

A tremendous opportunity for Harabotzas Torah is available!

Many of the Halachah Discussion which you have been reading in the Yated
for the last several years are now being prepared to be published in
book form, to be called The Monthly Halachah Discussion. Dedications
and sponsorships are available.

1 Rama O.C. 46:8.
2 Berachos 15a and 60b.
3 The source for the "spirit of impurity" is the Talmud (Shabbos 108b;
  Yoma 77b) and the Zohar, quoted by the Beis Yosef O.C. 4.
4 O.C. 4:3.
5 Mishnah Berurah 4:8.
6 Aruch ha-Shulchan 4:4 based on Rambam, Hilchos Berachos 6:2.
7 The rationale for this is: 1) Lo pelug, which means that once the Sages
  ordained that washing the hands is necessary because one is considered
  a "new person", they did not differentiate between an individual
  who slept and one who did not (Beis Yosef quoted by Mishnah Berurah
  4:28); 2) The blessing was established to reflect chiddush ha-olam,
  which means that since the "world" as a whole is renewed each morning,
  it is incumbent upon the individual to sanctify himself and prepare
  to serve Hashem each morning; whether he, personally, was "renewed"
  is immaterial (Beiur Halachah quoting the Rashba).
8 Mishnah Berurah 4:28.
9 Ruling of Aruch ha-Shulchan 4:12.
10 Mishnah Berurah 4:30 and Beiur Halachah 494:1. This should be done
   immediately after alos amud ha-shachar in order to remove the spirit
   of impurity; O.C. 4:14.
11 Even one who falls asleep during his learning [while leaning on a
   shtender or a table, etc.] does not say Birchos ha-Torah upon
   awakening; Kaf ha-Chayim 47:27.
12 47:28. Many other poskim, though, rule that Birchos ha-Torah may
   be said even by one who did not sleep at all; see Birkei Yosef 46:12;
   Shulchan Aruch Harav 47:7; Aruch ha-Shulchan 47:23; Kaf ha-Chayim
13 R' Akiva Eiger quoted by Mishnah Berurah 47:28. Harav C. Kanievsky,
   however, reports that the Chazon Ish did not agree with this ruling
   (Ishei Yisrael Hilchos Tefillah, pg. 719).
14 Keren L'David 59 and Luach Eretz Yisrael quoting the Aderes (quoted
   in Piskei Teshuvos O.C. 494:6).
15 46:24. This is also the ruling of Chayei Adam 8:9 and Kitzur Shulchan
   Aruch 7:5.
16 Shulchan Aruch Harav 46:7; Kaf ha-Chayim 46:49; Aruch ha-Shulchan
   46:13; Misgeres ha-Shulchan 2:2.
17 Mishnah Berurah 6:14. In addition, see Kisvei Harav Henkin 2:7, who
   maintains that since many of the blessings are written in the first
   person, they must be recited by each individual; listening to them
   being recited by another person is not adequate.

Carl M. Sherer, Adv. Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751 Fax 972-2-625-0461 eFax (US) 1-253-423-1459
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il  mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 20:54:20 +0300
From: "S. Goldstein" <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
tfillin for goyim

RGS> A Non-Jew, however, would be a problem [of Guf Naki] according to the AH.

Since a non-Jew is completely exempt from the mitzva of tefillin, what
issur is he doing? Tos and the Bais Yosef quote a Yerushalmi that there
was a minhag to say a bracha upon removing tefillin. It seems that this
brocho is connected to proper performance of the mitzva of tefillin by
one so obligated. I would think that a non-Jew cannot possibly violate
any issur-aseh of tefillin without a chiyuv in the first place.

Shlomo Goldstein

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:38:05 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
RE: Rabbi Bechhofer's principle [was: Sheruth Leumi]

On 23 May 01, at 16:11, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
>> I assume you mean even if he disagrees. Which is interesting as I got
>> the impression from his shiur on TSBP that a posek is supposed to pasken
>> against earlier poskim if he understands different(ie how can R' Moshe
>> go against the chafetz chaim) even if the earlier are greater(yiftach
>> bdoro etc.).

From: Carl and Adina Sherer [mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il]
> I think you need to differentiate between where the later posek feels
> that he understands the reasoning behind the earlier posek's psak (in
> which case he may go against it), and where he does not understand the
> reason (in which case he may not go against it).

I strongly doubt that poskim operate this way.  Do you mean to say that if a
posek wrote unclearly or did express a reason for his decision (e.g., a
pithy rishon's perush on gemara, such as Rabbeinu Chananel or the Rif), we
must pasken like him?  That does not accord with my experience.

Kol tuv,

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 21:26:15 +0300
From: "S. Goldstein" <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
Halacha and Torah

RRW asks
> Perhaps non-Halachic Torah is ipso facto invalid?
> Illustrations: Do we learn the Apocrypha? Do we learn Torah from Tzadukkim?
> Karraim?
> What is NOT kehalacha and yet is still Torah?

Torah is TaNaCh, Mishnah, Gemara and Poskim. This is codified in SA in
YD for "birkas haTorah" and in HM as "dvar mishna" concerning a dayan
who errs.

Poskim expand this to include Midrash and Kabbalah.

See the Rambam and SA in the Laws of Talmud Torah that further thought
on these matters is called "gemara" and is also Torah.

Those who don't accept this definition of Torah in its entirety are
people who are fighting against Torah and therefore ineligible to teach
Torah(to be a source for further thought which is called "gemara").

This is why one who stands for a sefer Torah and not for a Talmid Chacham
is acting quite foolishly for certainly the TC contains more of what is
defined as Torah.

Therefore in addition to Midrash, Kabbala, Mussar, Machashava and
Chassidus which are normally non-Halachic but yet are still considered
Torah; so too a baal habayis who goes to Minchas Chinuch shiur and asks:
why not this.. what about another chiluk... even if his comments are
non-Halachic it would seem to me to be still Torah.

Shlomo Goldstein

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 08:35:30 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Rabbi Bechhofer's principle [was: Sheruth Leumi]

: At 04:20 PM 5/23/01 -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: >Does Rabbi Bechhofer's Principle (RBP) apply even when the original psak was
: >given a great rav (in this case the Chazon Ish) rather than a Beis Din whose
: >psak is binding on all klal yisrael?
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 04:20:46PM -0500, RYGB replied:
: Excellent point.

: The *principle* is still in effect - although not the halacha.

I made a similar statement when R' David Glasner and I were hashing
out these halachos. That the power of one poseik WRT another ought to
parallel that of one beis din kineged another.

However, post-Kesef Mishnah, I didn't understand the Rambam the way RYGB did.
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 01:55:32PM -0500, he wrote:
: I believe if you peruse the Rambam in Hil. Mamrim about when you need a BD
: gadol b'chochmo u'b'minyon and when you do not (to argue on prior Battei
: Din) you will find the source for Rabbi Bechhofer's Principle :-) .

I think by the end of the argument, I had concluded that Mamrim 2:1
referred to piskei halachah, overturning interpretation as opposed to
legislation. 2:2 refers to dinim or minhagim legislated for reasons
other than siyag, whereas siyagim that were accepted by all of Klal
Yisrael are the topic of 2:3.

IOW, anyone can overturn a pesak (2:1), which is why we assume the current
reluctance against jumping era borders is lifnim mishuras hadin. Gadol
mimenu bichachmah uvminyan can overturn most takanos and minhagim (2:2),
and an accepted siyag can't ever be overturned (2:3).

I'm rehashing all of this for a reason: We're now blurring the notions
of accepting a pesak (2:1) with minhag (2:2). However, their halachic
implications are different. I need clarification.


Micha Berger                 Today is the 47th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org            6 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org       Hod sheb'Malchus: What is glorious about
(973) 916-0287                        unity-how does it draw out one's soul?

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 08:46:10 EDT
From: Phyllostac@aol.com
guf noki and Lubavitch tefillin campaign - clarifications of concerns

Perhaps I was not totally understood re my point re guf noki re the Lubavitch 
tefillin campaign - I was thinking of the possibility of 'qeri' type 
emissions - which I think is a chashash today when one sees the way people 
are dressed in big cities - esp. (but not exclusively) in warm weather. Am I 
missing something - is this not a potential concern - at least for some? IIRC 
if someone had such an emission and it is still 'al bisaro' - they are still 
considered unclean - so that makes this chashash much more relevant - we are 
not only thinking of something possibly ocurring during the short time the 
fellow is in the mitzvoh tank.

Also, I think it should be noted that tefillin have a special status / 
kedusha. To illustrate, let us recall, that although we start young boys on 
other mitzvos long / years before they are bat mitzvah, WRT Tefillin we wait 
until only a short time before bar mitzvah to start this chinuch - unlike 
with tzitzis for example. The reason is, IIRC, because Tefillin require 
special care. Although we don't take this to an extreme, as R. Gil pointed 
out, nevertheless, it is still definitely a factor to be considered AFAIK.

Question - what is the aim of the Lubavitch Tefillin campaign - is it to 
remove the status of someone who never wore tefillin from people - or as part 
of kiruv? If you will say both, I ask, which aim is primary and which 

Also, do the ones laying the Tefillin on the walk-ins from the street tell 
them of the holiness of tefillin and the attendant requirements? Who says it 
is mutar / allowed / in their power to 'waive' this for the sake of 'kiruv' 
and removing the status of 'lo manach tefillin'? Why don't they try another 
mitzvah with the walk-ins, e.g. tzitzis, which is also very choshuv and 
powerful, but has less stringent halochos re kedusha, instead of starting 
with Tefillin?

If the whole idea is to remove the status of 'one who did not lay Tefillin', 
then wouldn't that be anyway removed later if / when this person became 
'frum' ? - and if they don't become frum will that alone give them a cheilek 
in olam habo that they otherwise wouldn't get (is that so clear?) ? When the 
mishna says Kol Yisroel yesh lohem sheilek liolom habo..... it doesn't say 
only if they put on Tefillin at least once - so even if it may say that 
elsewhere, perhaps that conflicts with the mishna of Kol Yisroel ....?


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 >