Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 071

Tuesday, August 6 2002

• Wedding Rings for men
• Re: beged ish
• Chukas hagoy
• Basar SheNisalem Min HaAyin
• Re: 100 Berachos
• sanhedrin
• Re: chillul hashem
• Re: chillul hashem
• The Ramchal in Chassidus cont'd.
• The Abarbanel's Response is Fiction, Sorry
• Mochin
• Kashrus and Parents
• Can Halacha Dictate reality
• kriyas hatorah
• Re: Wedding Rings for men
• rings- beged isha. ?
• Re: beged ish
• Re: rings - beged isha. ?
• Re: rings - beged isha. ?
• Re: rings- beged isha. ?
• Re: Mochin
• Re: 100 Berachos
• Re: Can Halacha Dictate reality
• RE: The MB and psaq
• Re: kriyas hatorah
• Re: Can Halacha Dictate reality
• Re: rings- beged isha. ?
• Re: The/A mesorah
• Re: Machlokes resolution and Sanhedrin

Daniel Schiffman:
>Rav Herschel Schachter advises men to wear wedding rings to work, if
>they work in mixed-gender, secular environments. This minimizes problems
>of unwanted attentions from women. He did not address specifically the
>issue of begged isha.

Question: "Advises" as in tells every choson that works in such
environment, and every married man that goes into the workforce, that
they should do it, or tells people that ask him whether it might be a
good idea, that it is a good idea?

(In other words, should I go and get a wedding rings four years after
my wedding, even though women are not giving me unwanted attention?)

As an aside, I'm not sure how much it would help if it was a problem.
I've seen women flirting with married men also.

And I do have lots of pictures of my wife and kids at my desk, which
may serve a similar function, but I understand that every situation
is different.

I've heard Rabbi Mordechai Willig on a tape at Camp Morasha discussing
this topic, I don't remember exactly, but my impression is that he
wasn't in favor of married men wearing wedding rings, except where he
feels it will help him avoid trouble at work, but he said something
about putting on when he gets to work, and taking it off when he leaves.
(Disclaimer: this is a very vague recollection.)

Regards, 
Avraham Cohen

RCS wrote:
> But I think in EY the presumption is that surrounding society is solely
> Jewish. I was asking whether we determine standards of Begged Ish/Isha
> based on standards of non-Jewish society. So I'm not sure how relevant
> the Shmitta comparison is. Especially since our standards of dress are
> different than those of non-Jewish society (which is less likely to be
> the case with orange peels).

Solely Jewish, but not solely religious.

Arie

We have recently touched the matter of Chukas Hagoy twice - once re
'canonicals' and secondly regarding the minhag of upseherin at 3.

Someone directed me to Rambam Hilchos Akum 13:1 and the KM saying that
imitating their clothing is ossur in cases of tsenius and AZ.

So I am still puzzled about those rabonim who wore them.

And (re upseherin) the Hagohos Maimonios writes:
 "ein lehosif misvoro al mah shemonu chachomim
shehoyso kabolo beyodom shehu mechukas hAkum...".

So while someone may make a case against bluriyes (mentioned in the
Rambam) , I don't think upsherin has a problem...

SBA

I mentioned on Areivim that we pasken that basar shenisalem min ha'ayin
(BSMH) is mutar and someone asked me to elaborate.

The Gemara in Chullin 95a quotes a Mishnah that if an animal cut into
pieces is found outside of the Mikdash then it is mutar. Rav explains,
based on his shitah that BSMH is assur, that it is mutar in terms
of neveilah that it is not metamei. Levi explains that it is mutar
to eat. Thus, we have a machlokes Rav and Levi whether BSMH is assur.
While many pasken like Rav, Rashi on 95b sv Rav Huna paskens like Levi.
The Mechaber (YD 63:1) seems to pasken like Rav but brings a yesh omrim
like Levi. The Rama adds that the minhag is to be meikel like Levi that
BSMH is mutar.

However, even within Levi's shitah that BSMH is mutar there are those who
believe that he would assur if one cannot recognize that it looks kosher.
See the Chiddushei HaRashba 95a and Toras HaBayis 2:4:2 (pp. 61-62).

Furthermore, while the Aruch HaShulchan affirms the Rama's following
Rashi's shitah 100%, the Simlah Chadashah/Tevuos Shor says that the
minhag is only when one has meat and it then leaves one's sight (literal
BSMH) but not when one finds meat that someone else put down (although
this seems to me like a chumra yeseirah). See the Darchei Teshuvah on
the Rama.

However, benidon didan where a reliable caterer brings cholent to a shul
and then it is served the next morning to the daveners, is not cholent in
itself a siman that the meat is kosher? How often is non-kosher cholent
made? LAD, and I'm not a posek, the meat being made into cholent is a
siman that it was prepared by a kosher caterer so that even according
to Rav there is no problem of BSMH.

And to the question of chillufin (that the waiters sold the kosher
cholent, bought a cheaper non-kosher cholent, and pocketed the
difference), there is no market for kosher cholent (on Shabbos!) and
there is no significant profit margin for the waiters to make. See the
Rama in YD 118:2 that if there is no reason to suspect chillufin then
we are meikel.

Gil Student

In a message dated 8/1/02 11:57:26pm EDT, charlesf.brown@gs.com writes:
> Regardless of how you read the O.Z., the last point seems to be true -
> the rule of 100 berachos does not stricly follow a day/night boundry,
> but is a din in tefilah, i.e. if you daven an early ma'ariv one day and
> wait till after tzais to daven the next night, I doubt anyone would argue
> that ma'ariv on day #1 before tzais counted for day #1, ma'ariv after
> tzais on the next night counts for day #3, and day #2 is short....Such
> a sevara would potentially cut ma'ariv out of the count completely for
> those who make early Shabbos.

I would think as long as it is Erev and Boker it would satisfy the 
requirement.

[Email #2. -mi]

> On a different note: women who do not daven ma'ariv will always be short
> 23 berachos each day....either they eat a lot of snacks, there is some
> other way to be mashlim, or for some reason the whole obligation does
> not apply to them?

In addition to the Brochos: Sheloi Osani Isha, Tzitzis, Tfilin, Birchos Krias 
Shma, Birchas Hamozozn (sofeik).  Perhaps since they are not Yotzei Tzava 
(the reason for Dovid Hamelech's Takana) it doesn't apply to them.

> The Or Zarua (Erev Shabbos 21, Darchei Moshe brings it 249) records a
> minhag rishonim of eating cake/mezonos Friday night before kiddush to
> be mashlim 100 berachos. The safek got me thinking of how to read
> that O.Z. - perhaps he means they are mashlim the 100 berachos of
> *Erev Shabbos* (as opposed to learning that the concern was being

The difference is *12* Brochos.

[Email #3. -mi]

In a message dated 8/1/02 11:57:26pm EDT, charlesf.brown@gs.com writes:
> On a different note: women who do not daven ma'ariv will always be short

24 Brochos including Yiru Eininu.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

Gil Student:
> R' Reuven Margoliyos wrote an essay titled "Batei HaMishpat BeYisrael"
> in which he claimed that the Sanhedrin was not a civil authority and the
> Jewish people had a separate, "chiloni" court that dealt with civil matters.
> I've never seen it inside but he quotes it in some of his later works.

Historically it is clear that something like this must have happened.
Much of the period of the zugot overlapped with the kingdom of the
chashmanoim who were also high priests and many of them saducees. It is
highly unlikely that they would have let the high court in the hands
of the pharisees. There are hints in the Gemara of fights between the
Sanhedrin and the kings.

I dont have my books with me but a 100 years before the churban (ie 30
BCE) may be pre-Herod. Also it is not clear if the reign of Hillel as
40 years is 100% accurate. Chazal frequently round off numbers and the
numbers of 40,80,120 appear quite frequently.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

David Riceman wrote:
>My question is this: is maligning God an aveirah? If so, what aveirah?

Mecharef umegadef, maybe?

Gil Student

Gil Student wrote:
> David Riceman wrote:
>> My question is this: is maligning God an aveirah? If so, what aveirah?

> Mecharef umegadef, maybe?

Doesn't that require the use of a sheim sheeino nimchak?

David

 From a correspondent (Chabad):

>I've followed the discussion about the omission of the Ramchal in 
>Chassidus with great interest as this topic has always intrigued me.
>L'fee aniyus daati, a few nekudos are important in this context:

>1. The Ramchal is only one of many who are not discussed in Chassidus. In 
>fact, as Chassidus is so particular about it's references, the chiddush is 
>precisely when an author IS mentioned in Chassidus.

>2. Mekubolim are usually not mentioned in Chassidus if they were either 
>prior to kabalas ha'Ari or even after the Ari but "solalu mesilah 
>le'atzmam" (paved their own road in kabbalah, not completely consistent 
>with shitas ha'Ari). Chassidus maintains that the advent of kabalas ha'Ari 
>is of such might that all other shitos in kabbalah are, kevayachol, "hevel 
>hu lifnai toraso shel mashiach" (to paraphrase a Midrash). The Gra, OTOH, 
>maintained that kabalas ha'Ari isn't "kulah mee'pi Eliyahu", and, hence 
>his great respect for the Ramchal.

> 3. With regard to Ramchal specifically, there were many chashashos: he 
> had leanings to shabsa'us, both in his ideology and also his circle of 
> influence (he was a member of Chevras Mevakshai Emunah in Padua, IIRC, 
> together with Nasan Ha'azasi and there were messianic interests in his 
> study group), he was beardless (always?), studied kabbalah with his own 
> magid (who was the source for his first book in Kabbalah) which was a 
> major cause of suspicion, married late (if at all - I don't remember 
> right now), rumor had it that he wasn't nizhar in tevilas ezra etc. These 
> issues didn't go down well in Chassidic circles, even generations later, 
> for obvious reasons.

>At the time, the chief rabbis of Padua, Venice and Frankfurt were 
>involved, and during a number of disputes he was forced to hand over to 
>them some of his controversial writings. They were particularly concerned 
>about his idea that kabbalah should be taught to everyone within the 
>Jewish community and accessible to all (although later on Chassidus held a 
>similiar, but distinct, view in this matter). His detractors, led by Rabbi 
>Moshe Chagiz, forced him to emigrate.

>In 1937, Dr.Simon Ginzburg published many of his letters which describe in 
>his own words the persecution that he endured. (See also The Chida by Zev 
>Paretzky which deals with the Chida's attitude to this controversial 
>figure. It would seem that the Chida acted with caution, to say the least, 
>in this regard.)

>4. There are conflicting rumors as to the Maggid of Mezritch's attitude 
>towards Ramchal, none of which have been fully substantiated.

>5. It seems that, generally speaking, when faced with concepts which 
>originated in controversial texts (e.g. many kabbalistic customs and ideas 
>which originate in Chemdas Hayamim), Chassidus acts in one of the 
>following manners: A) quoting the theory without it's reference so as not 
>to give, so to speak, a hechsher on the authortativeness of the text. B) 
>quoting the theory from an alternative "kosher" source although it isn't 
>the original source. C) mentioning the text b'remez e.g. in rashei teivos; 
>without naming the author, etc. (similiar to the Tzemach Tzdek writing in 
>Ohr Hatorah Pinchas p.1085 "b'sefer choker u'mekubal"). D) mentioning the 
>text with a shover b'tzido - an outright rebuttal (this is used, IIRC, 
>with Rabeinu Bachye, Ralbag, Moreh Nevuchim and other philosophical works. 
>However, often these texts are reinterpreted in Chassidic teachings al pi 
>Chassidus. IIUC, Chassidus deems these texts controversial, but not the 
>authors, mah she'ain kain be'inyanainu). Suffice it to say that extreme 
>caution is displayed in Chassidus when dealing with controversial figures 
>or texts.

>However, it appears that with regard to Ramchal there wasn't much of a 
>dilemma anyhow, as Ramchal's writings (in contrast to Chemdas Hayamim 
>etc.) weren't that "necessary" in the context of Chassidus, i.e. Ramchal 
>serves more as a basis for Higayon (intellectual philosophy etc.) and 
>structuring of Kabbalah rather than novel concepts in Kabalah or novel 
>minhagim.

>6. Obviously, this discussion centers only around discussion of Ramchal in 
>tradtional authoritative Chassidic texts, which were extremely particular 
>about their references and sources, in contrast to some of the later 
>Chassidishe sefarim which don't seem to subscribe to this selective 
>exclusionary approach. In this context, it is noteworthy that the 
>(Lubavitcher) Rebbe does mention Ramchal, albeit in a letter to an author 
>(not in a formal Chassidic discourse) bemoaning the fact that he doesn't 
>dedicate much to the issue of Ramchal as a Kabbalist.

 From another correspondent who contacted the author below, who crafted the 
Abarbanel's response:

> My son Abraham has forwarded your letter to me. The answer to your
> question is the following: The response attributed to Don Isaac
> Abravanel in response to the expulsion decree is taken word by word
> from my historical novel, "The Alhambra Decree." I have made several
> attempts to inform individuals on the Internet that the Abravanel speech
> is of my authorship, but this has not deterred anyone from continuing
> to state on their website that it is Don Isaac's. If I may, as a means
> of settling the dispute, would you kindly ask these individuals to
> please order my novel, "The Alhambra Decree", from Carmi House Press
> (website www.carmihouse.com)and read it for themselves. It sells for $
> 35. and is available in Spanish translation. It is also available through
> Barnes and Noble.

> Anyhow, I hope this is of help to you. Incidentally, as a point of
> information, Don Isaac spelled his surname Abravanel, not Abarbanel
> (this alternate spelling began later).

> With warmest regards,
> David Raphael, MD,PhD
> Associate Professor, Dept. of Anesthesiology
> University of Southern California Medical Center
> 1200 North State St., Room 14-901
> Los Angeles, CA 90033

 From a correspondent: 

please ask the group to help me in the translation of the word mochin. The
usual terms do not do it justice. Brains is meaningless, and marrow is
too phsycial. Consciousness and awareness are post Freudian terms that
are projected inappropriately back onto texts that were pre Freudian. So
where can we go with this? Clearly in Rav Nachman it means a psycholocial
state but the Lurianic term is different.

thanks

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
: But you're extrapolating from a tshuva that Rav Moshe wrote about
: parents relying on their children to a tshuva about children relying on
: their parents. Are the two situations necessarily comparable?

Doesn't Rav Moshe have a similar teshuva going the other way also? RDE?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

I recently came across a story (it is recounted in the early pages of a
book named Worldmask, by R Akiva Tatz) that runs essentially as follows:
A man who lived in EY was gravely ill and the doctors had told him that
he would have to travel to Europe for treatment since the doctors in EY
were not equipped to deal with his problem. Before traveling he went to
see the Chazon Ish. The Chazon Ish asked him the nature of his ailment,
and after hearing its description, told him that if he traveled to Europe
he would die, but if he stayed put he would be fine. He followed the CI,
and indeed kach hava. Afterwards, in describing why he would give such
unusual advice, the CI is purported to have explained that in hearing
the description of the ailment he was reminded of a siman in SA dealing
with treifos. The SA paskened that a beheima with this kind of ailment
is not a treifa and the Rema disagreed holding that the animal was osur
as a treifa. Based on this, the CI is alleged to have opined that since
the "moreh deasrah" of Europe is the Rema, there this individual would
be b'geder treifa and not have long to live. In EY, where the SA had
jurisdiction, the individual was not in the category of treifa and would
be fine. End of story.

My question -- Leaving aside the veracity of the story, are there any
clear sources, kabbalistic or otherwise, that indicate that halacha
and/or psak can influence physical reality?

KT,
Shimon Isaacson

>WRT the amount of fasting people, there are those who hold that 6 are
>needed, the Tzemach Tzedek (Lubavitch) rules 3 are enough.

In SHUT O"C 100. However there may be a difference between not fasting
because of Oines (like in the case in that Shaala) to a case of not
fasting when there is no Oines.

kol tuv
yosef stern

In a message dated 8/5/02 12:21:23pm EDT, jcohen@dclab.com writes:
> I've heard Rabbi Mordechai Willig on a tape at Camp Morasha discussing
> this topic, I don't remember exactly, but my impression is that he
> wasn't in favor of married men wearing wedding rings, ...

Reason for his opposition?

KT
Joel

From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
: OTOH I don't recall women removing their rings before netilas lulav..
: Has anyone heard of them doing so?

Do you tell your wife/daughters to remove theirs? Why would the fact
that some people don't tell them/many women don't know on their own
become a source for a "minhag"?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 2 Aug 2002 at 10:22, Arie Folger wrote:
> RCS wrote:
>> But I think in EY the presumption is that surrounding society is solely
>> Jewish. I was asking whether we determine standards of Begged Ish/Isha
>> based on standards of non-Jewish society. So I'm not sure how relevant
>> the Shmitta comparison is. Especially since our standards of dress are
>> different than those of non-Jewish society (which is less likely to be
>> the case with orange peels).

> Solely Jewish, but not solely religious.

Source? You'd include mumarim and tinokos she'nishbu?

-- Carl

In Avodah V9 #70, SBAbeles notes:
> KSA dinei netilas lulav [177:3] recommends removal of rings befor netila
> (with the MB saying that if he didn't, he should redo it without rings).
> It seems that they do not consider rings as beged isha.

> OTOH I don't recall women removing their rings before netilas lulav..
> Has anyone heard of them doing so?

IIRC, see Mikvaos 9:3 re a chatzitzah about which one is not makpid --
the opinion of R'Eliezer seems to be l'halachah re n'tilas yodayim (see
OC 161:2) and not l'halachah re t'vilah (I think the relevant SA source
for that is YD 198), so one could posit it would also be l'halachah re
n'tilas lulav; perhaps the MB you quote could make some chakira between
lulav and yodayim (see MA 11 on OC 161, which MB quotes), e.g. there's no
sha'as m'lachah during Sukkos. Anyway, as has been noted, this whole
discussion shouldn't be occurring if a precious-stone-less ring was
considered "beged ishah" -- Carl, are you modeh? :-)

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 8/1/02 11:53:48pm EDT, dr@insight.att.com writes:
> The gemara in Shabbs (first perek) discusses men wearing women's rings
> on Shabbos, and doesn't raise that as a problem.

See S"A Horav 301:6 from the RYV quoted in BY that now it is customary
for men to adorn themselves with a Tabas Shein Oleha Chosom.

[Email #2. -mi]

In a message dated 8/5/02 12:21:26pm EDT, sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
> KSA dinei netilas lulav [177:3] recommends removal of rings befor netila
> (with the MB saying that if he didn't, he should redo it without rings).
> It seems that they do not consider rings as beged isha.

In Hil. Shabbos discussion Chiluk between Tabas Sheyesh Oleha Chosom.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
>: OTOH I don't recall women removing their rings before netilas lulav..
>: Has anyone heard of them doing so?
>
> Do you tell your wife/daughters to remove theirs?  Why would the fact that
> some people don't tell them/many women don't know on their own become a
> source for a "minhag"?

I'd be surprised if anyone considerered it a minhag.

But I was asking, has anyone noticed women (and indeed men)
remove rings before netilas lulav?

My guess is that women don't learn these halochos - so they
wouldn't know about it.

SBA

On 2 Aug 2002 at 11:18, sbechhof@casbah.it.northweste wrote:
>  From a correspondent: 
> please ask the group to help me in the translation of the word mochin...

Could it have something to do with the term "moch" as in the Gemara 
in Ksuvos and mean some sort of a soft barrier? 

-- Carl

On 2 Aug 2002 at 9:46, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
>> On a different note: women who do not daven ma'ariv will always be short
>> 23 berachos each day....

> In addition to the Brochos: Sheloi Osani Isha, 

She'asani kirtzono?

>> On a different note: women who do not daven ma'ariv will always be short

> 24 Brochos including Yiru Eininu.

Only in chu"l. 

-- Carl

> My question -- Leaving aside the veracity of the story, are there any
> clear sources, kabbalistic or otherwise, that indicate that halacha
> and/or psak can influence physical reality?

I can think of two -- Birchat HaChodesh, and the case of a piece of
treif meat that is mixed with 9 pieces of kosher meat -- we remove one
piece and the other nine are kosher.

Akiva

Regarding my claim that not all the MB was written by the CC, someone (who
does not wish to be identified) wrote me:
<<
I was talking a while back with a local Rov - a Ner
Yisroel Baltimore graduate -  and he claimed that the MB in Hil. Pesach
is a different style than the rest of MB, and he attributed it to the
above reason - that the CC didn't write it himself, but (he said) one
cannot say it loudly.... (I had long suspected something similar, as the
MB in hil. Pesach has many phrases etc. that are word-for-word from the
SA Horav, w/o bringing a source, it may be explained by the above. VAKML).
>>

Does anyone else have that impression of the MB's style in Hil. Pesach?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated 8/5/02 12:24:52pm EDT, avrahamyaakov@hotmail.com writes:
>> WRT the amount of fasting people, there are those who hold that 6 are
>> needed, the Tzemach Tzedek (Lubavitch) rules 3 are enough.

> In SHUT O"C 100. However there may be a difference between not fasting
> because of Oines (like in the case in that Shaala) to a case of not
> fasting when there is no Oines.

1) In the new prints it is O"C 110 (in the old ones it is in the Shaar 
Hamiluim).

2)The reasoning of the Tshuva does not IMHO support that Chiluk, also the way 
the L. Rebbe quotes it in the Sefer Haminhogim, is Mashma that there is no 
Chiluk.

3) Otu Brsishi Askinan.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 8/5/02 12:24:28pm EDT, temp3@kflaw.com writes:
> My question -- Leaving aside the veracity of the story, are there any
> clear sources, kabbalistic or otherwise, that indicate that halacha
> and/or psak can influence physical reality?

1) as in all such stories depends from which Kreiz you come and you get a 
different Godol :-)

2) The famous Yerushalmi brought in M"A on "Lkel Gomer Oly" that Bsuleh'ha 
Chozrin.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

<<But I was asking, has anyone noticed women (and indeed men)
remove rings before netilas lulav?>>

My wife and daughters do, because I told them to <g>

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 10:15:17PM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: If you have a community that NEVER had the Talmud how would they KNOW
: to reject Josephus? ...

What do you mean "reject Josephus"? Since when did J claim to be a
poseiq? Josephus wrote history, and therefore what people did lema'aseh.
He never claimed to be an authority able to rule whether or not they
were acting correctly.

In any case, these hypothetical Zebulunites weren't around for bayis
Shein -- they are equally far from both what Josephus reports and
what chazal tell us ought be done.

-mi

On Sun, Jul 28, 2002 at 01:28:30AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: Hillel was Nasi 100 years before the Churban and served for 40 years. Thus
: there was a 60 year period prior to the Churban where capital punishment
: and Hillel/Beis Hillel and Shammai/Beis Shammai coexisted.

First, I think it inappropriate to lump Hillel and Shammai with Batei
Hillel veShammai in this context. The rise of machloqesin was shelo
shimshu es rabosam -- that they represented a major break in the mesorah.

In any case, this means that if we blame the machloqesei batei Hillel
veShammai on the lack of Sanhedrin beLishikas haGazis, we would need
to assume that the proliferation of unresolved machlokesin postdated
Hillel's petirah by 60 years. No problem, as the schools lasted far
longer than that, and we have little indication of what's an earlier
statement from BH or BS and what's a later one.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

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


[ 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         ]