Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 371

Sat, 01 Nov 2008

• 1. Re: Hypocrisy in halakhah (Michael Makovi)
• 2. Re: Hypocrisy in halakhah (Simon Montagu)
• 3. Re: Hypocrisy in halakhah (Michael Makovi)
• 4. Kiddush in shul - Friday nights (Dov Kay)
• 5. Kiddush in shul Friday night (Dov Kay)
• 6. Re: Monagamy [was: Hypocrisy in halakhah] (T6...@aol.com)
• 7. Re: PR (T6...@aol.com)
• 8. Re: PR (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Hypocrisy in halakhah (Rich, Joel)

I thank R' Micha for pointing out my Historical School viewpoint,
which may not accord with Rabbi Dr. David Berger's intent. I look
forward to his clarifying with Rabbi Berger himself.

But I was not striving for an accurate presentation of Rabbi Berger
per se's position; I was using him as a paradigm.

Now, as for my halakhic explanation: however one explains it, whether
by Berkovits-ian philosophy or not, I believe it clear, as Rabbi
Berger himself notes, that when one rejects the entire history of
Rishonim on the subject, and selects Meiri against them all, this is a
violation of the classical halakhic system, and special motivations
are at work. Rabbi Berger himself suggests that the rabbis he adduces
as supporting Meiri did so because even though it violates the
classical halakhic method, they saw it as according most closely with
the Torah's own ethos. Rabbi Berger says this explicitly.

He even notes that one authority (Rabbi Henkin I believe, but I forget
whether the elder or the younger) even built a shita on Biblical
verses; Rabbi Berger notes that something unusual is at work when a
posek paskens on humash.

Mikha'el Makovi

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

>> (BTW: What does KYRH stand for? My guess is that the K is Kaiser, but
>> I'm clueless on the rest.)
>
> Keisar Yarum Hodo.  It was the standard Hebrew appellation for the Czar.

I remember hearing "Hamalka Yarum Hodah" occasionally in England.

I am reading at the moment R' DZ Hoffman's work on nicht-Judes on
Professor Levine's website. Rabbi Hoffman makes three particularly key
arguments:

1) All the ostensibly discriminatory laws in the Shulhan Aruch only
apply to ancient immoral heathens, following the Be'er haGolah, which
makes an argument similar to Meiri, even though Meiri is not cited.

2) Even against immoral ancient nicht-judes (which are not availed of
Be'er haGolah/Meiri), darkhei shalom overrides the empirical halakhah
which otherwise permits us to ill-treat them. According to truth and
justice, we should ill-treat the evil nicht-jude, but peace overrides
this. (Rabbi Jakobovits makes a similar argument; he says that darkhei
shalom is an ethical corrective of the Torah which overrides otherwise
binding empirical halakhah when that empirical halakhah violates
shalom.)

3) Hilul hashem also obviates mistreating them. Even in secret, a
hilul hashem is a sin. This answers the question of Rabbis Aharon
Lichtenstein and Yehuda Amital about saving a nicht-Jude on a desert
island, where mishum eiva is no concern. Even if mishum eiva is not
present, a hilul hashem b'seter is still present, and thus it is
forbidden to not save him.

But Rabbi Hoffman applies a proviso to hilul hashem: on page 10 of the
PDF, he notes that the matter must be something which the nicht-judes
would disapprove of according to their own standards and morals. If
the nicht-Judes do not disapprove, then hilul hashem is of no avail
regarding their treatment. This solves my question of hypocrisy -
Rabbi Hoffman has ruled hypocrisy forbidden by virtue of hilul hashem,
even b'seter!

To quote Rabbi Hoffman, "This rule [of hilul hashem] neutralizes every
of the Sh. A. involving nicht-Judes and akums, as long as they are
certain to be rejected by the current concepts of justice and morale."

Mikha'el Makovi

In our neo-Yekke shul, Etz Chaim in Manchester, we make kiddush and havdala
in shul.  In fact, the shul raises considerable money every year by
auctioning off the gelt for yayin l'kiddush v'havdala, as the donor is the
beneficiary of the weekly mi sheberach before mussaf.
 
IIRC, it was the Ashkenazi Rishonim who struggled with the fact that making
kiddush in shul nowadays violates ein kiddush ela b'makon seuda.  It was
the Sephardi Rishonim, such as the Rashba and Ran, who were more
enthusiastic about the custom, and even suggested that it was a takkanas
Geonim so that those who could not make kiddush for themselves at home
would at least be yotze min hatorah in shul.  This is all from my memory of
the relevant siman in the Tur/BY.  However, one thing is certain - the
custom was widespread and ancient, except in EY.  The BY held that the
custom should not be adopted in communities without a fixed custom.  I have
never understood why shuls that have dispensed with this beautiful custom,
has retained the custom to light chanuka neros in shul.  Both are
problematic in strict halachic terms.  Also, kiddush in shul has a positive
educational impact on children.  I think this argument was raised by the
Seridei Eish in one of his teshuvos.
 
There is a divergence in customs whether to make kiddush in shul on Sukkos.  
 
Does anyone know what Sephardim (outside of EY) do?
 
RMB referred to the practice in the Litvish Yeshivos not to say kiddush in
the Beis HaMidrash.  However, I am curious as to the mainstream custom in
shuls in pre-war Lithuania.  I don't have the AhS to hand, but don't recall
his saying that the custom was not practised, so presumably it was
(together with the recital of maarovos and other customs that are now
stigmatised as "Yekkish").  I notice that many Litvaks (or neo-Litvaks)
davka adopt Yeshivishe customs, even though these were not practised in the
vast majority of shuls in Lita (eg yisgadeil rather than yisgadal).  Does
anyone know where to found a collection of mainstream Litvish minhag (other
than AhS)?
 
Kol tuv 
Dov Kay
_________________________________________________________________
Discover Bird's Eye View now with Multimap from Live Search
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354026/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081031/7ec4cafb/attachment-0001.htm>

R. T. Katz wrote:
 
<<From what I've read, poor people and travelers used to sleep (and
often, eat) in the shul and that's why they made kiddush in shul. Nobody
sleeps in shul anymore, everybody is going someplace else for the meal and
there is no need to make kiddush in shul. Some shuls retain the custom
anyway. New BTs or becoming-BTs might need to hear kiddush in shul because
they don't know how to make kiddush themselves.>>
 
See Pesachim 101.
 
Tosfos on Pesachim 101a have trouble squaring the custom of kiddush in shul
with the fact that it is forbidden to eat and sleep in a shul.	True,
kiddush itself is a mitzva and should be permitted, but eating and sleeping
(which what the Gemara says)? One solution proposed there is that the poor
ate in rooms adjoining the shul, but kiddush itself was made in the shul.  
 
Also, as I have already posted, according to some Rishonim, this is a takkonas Geonim, not just a throwback to more straitened days.  
 
I heard that the KAJ in Ramot dispensed with this custom on the advice
(urging?) of R. Elyashiv.  I don't understand this.  It is true that the BY
says that minhag EY is not to make kiddush in shul.  However, most
Ashkenazi minhagim practised by Ashkenazim in EY today are not indigenous
minhagim.  So why should kiddush in shul, or tefillin on Chol HaMoed for
that matter, be any different?	If we say that minhag Avos trumps minhag
hamakom in some cases, why not in others?  This is on my mind at the moment
as I am planning to make aliyah with my family in the next four months.
 
This reminds me of the joke about the gabbai in the shul of Shaarei Tzedek
hospital (founded by Yekkes), who announced at the end of shacharis on Chol
haMoed, "Don't forget to put on tefillin b'tzina"!
 
Kol tuv 
Dov Kay
_________________________________________________________________
Catch up on all the latest celebrity gossip 
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/115454061/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081031/01b37a93/attachment-0001.htm>

 
 



From: Zev Sero _zev@sero.name_ (mailto:z...@sero.name) 

Rich, Joel  wrote:

> Question: What was the driving force behind the takkana of  rabbeinu
> gershom on monogamy?

Wasn't it his own experience of  the consequence of lack of sholom bayis?

--  


>>>>>
There seems to be some disagreement on that  point.  Some think the story of 
his unhappy domestic life with two wives is  an urban legend.  (I think that 
Marcus Lehman wrote a novel about it -- the  first wife was a tzadekes but 
childless, the second wife was a machsheifa  -- I don't remember the whole story.) 
Many seem to think that he was motivated  by a concern that the Jews not seem 
to be on a lower moral plane than their  Christian neighbors.
 
R' Berel Wein writes: "[I]n a Christian society where even monogamous  
marriage was viewed as a concession to the devil, polygamy was seen as outright  
immorality, a societal crime of lewdness which cast the Jewish community in a  
negative light in the eyes of society at large. Perhaps in order that Jews  not 
seem less 'moral' than their gentile neighbors did Rabbeinu Gershom ban  
polygamy at this time [c. 1100]"  R' Wein does not mention domestic discord  at all.
 
Grayzel writes, "The Bible permitted Jews to have more than one wife.   As 
time went on, however, the Jews adopted monogamy as their rule, although,  since 
the law on the subject had not been changed, there was a Jew now and then  
who married more than one woman. This gave their Christian neighbors a chance to 
 speak ill of the Jews.  It probably also resulted in quarrels within the  
family."  Nothing about R' Gershom's private life.
 
BTW I once met a man whose mother was one of two co-wives in a Sefardi  
family and he told me that his mother and the other wife squabbled constantly  and 
that he would never think of taking a second wife himself.  He said his  
father treated both wives as if they were two more of his squabbling children,  and 
the women were not treated with respect.
 
I can't understand modern-day feminists who, when you tell them gay  marriage 
may lead to polygamy, respond, "So what?"  I don't know how they  can fail to 
see that in a polygamous society women's status is drastically  compromised.

 


--Toby  Katz
=============



**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel.  Check out Today's Hot 
5 Travel Deals! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212416248x1200771803/aol?
redir=http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081031/c1cf4e77/attachment-0001.htm>

 
 
From: "Eli Turkel" _eliturkel@gmail.com_ (mailto:elitur...@gmail.com) 



>>On lying for the sake of PR see the rashi on Avraham and  Terach


In translation
"Why then does Scripture mention the death of Terah  before the
departure of Abram? In order that this matter (his leaving home  during
his father's lifetime) might not become known to all, lest people  say
that Abram did not show a son's respect to his father, for he left  him
in his old age and went his way.  (In other words, the  Torah
purposefully mentioned Terah's death before the actual time of  its
occurrence.)"

ie the Torah purposely lied so that people wouldn't  accuse Avraham .of
mistreating his father<<


-- 
Eli  Turkel


 
>>>>>
Changing the order in which events are recorded  is NOT lying.  The Torah 
says how old Terach was and how old Avraham was  and it can easily be calculated 
that Avraham left while his father was still  alive.  The Torah merely draws 
your attention to some facts while drawing  your attention away from some other 
facts, but it doesn't "lie."
 
(However for the sake of sholom bayis Hashem Himself did "lie" or at any  
rate made a significant change in reporting Sarah's words to her husband.   The 
change that He made is itself reported accurately in the Torah.)   



--Toby  Katz
=============



**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel.  Check out Today's Hot 
5 Travel Deals! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212416248x1200771803/aol?
redir=http://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081031/61208a9f/attachment-0001.htm>

Eli Turkel wrote:

> BTW when referring to Avraham before his name is changed should we use
> Abram or Abraham? Since once his name
> is changed we no longer use Abram but OTOH that was his name at the time

What do we do when we read in the Torah about those 99 years of his life?
We say "Avram" of course.  So why should it be different in other contexts?

Here's another question: when talking about the single days of a married
woman, how does one refer to her?  If the audience would have no idea whom
you're talking about, you use (at least the first time you refer to her)
her current name, but having informed them of her name at the time you can
then start using that.  With Avraham/Avram and Sarah/Saray that's unlikely
to be a problem.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
z...@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

 
 
R' Berel Wein writes: "[I]n a Christian society where even monogamous
marriage was viewed as a concession to the devil, polygamy was seen as
outright immorality, a societal crime of lewdness which cast the Jewish
community in a negative light in the eyes of society at large. Perhaps
in order that Jews not seem less 'moral' than their gentile neighbors
did Rabbeinu Gershom ban polygamy at this time [c. 1100]"  R' Wein does
not mention domestic discord at all.
 
Grayzel writes, "The Bible permitted Jews to have more than one wife.
As time went on, however, the Jews adopted monogamy as their rule,
although, since the law on the subject had not been changed, there was a
Jew now and then who married more than one woman. This gave their
Christian neighbors a chance to speak ill of the Jews.  It probably also
resulted in quarrels within the family."  Nothing about R' Gershom's
private life.
======================================================
 
Which was my original point - the impact of "outside thics" on halacha.
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20081031/6cb050f5/attachment.htm>

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


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 371
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."