Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 79

Wed, 18 May 2011

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Louisa Bieler <louisa.bie...@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 12:12:31 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] Was Chasam Sofer, Singular Ashkenazic Kaddish: now


> and this benefit is relevant for men and women.

This brings me the opportunity to ask a question:  is there actually
inherent spiritual benefit for a woman to going to Shul?  My
understanding is that its only beneficial in so far as it provides her
with an opportunity to focus more intensely during her Tefillo, but
that is entirely an internal benefit that could theoretically be had
EQUALLY if she managed to focus that intensely on her own, and that
this is totally different from the inherent spiritual benefit a man
experiences, by being an integral part of a minyan (the best) or at
least if he came later, part of the tzibbur (also good).

This is a view put together by listening to shiurim of Rav Ezriel
Tauber and Rebbetzin Neustadt (his daughter).  I do not know if it is
mainstream, but would appreciate knowing more context.

Thanks in advance!



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 12:26:08 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Shabbos invite and using eruv


Yerushalmi Eruvin 1:1 vilna daf 4a may be relevent. The Bavli has a
machloqes between Rav and Shemuel which the Y-mi says was also disputed
earlier between R' Yochanan and Reish Laqish. What to do when you have
two courtyards that connect in an L -- how far does the shituf on one
arm of the L extend into the corner, and what does that mean for how to
close it off.

Well, at R' Meir's shuq the case actually came up. They made an eiruv
al pi Reish Laqish, and R' Yochanan would not carry there. However,
he invoked "tov sheyihu shogegin..." and did not correct anyone else.

(BTW, Reish Laqish forced his rebbe to carry, as according to R' Meir
R' Yochanan's stretch of baalus would otherwise invalidate the shituf.)

Notice that the Y-mi does not assume R' Yochanan can simply allow others
to follow a shitah you feel is wrong. Here there was a special case --
he assumed they would carry anyway and tochachah wouldn't help.

It appears relevant to our discussion.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 28th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Netzach: What role does
Fax: (270) 514-1507      domination or taking control play in building brotherhood?



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: R Davidovich <raphaeldavidov...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 08:43:53 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Chasam Sofer Responds to Rav Yaakov Emden,


>>When would you guess that phenomenon of having multiple people say Qaddish
at once started?

>His reason is to prevent Ktatot uMerivot - "disputes/arguing? and fights"

ZGG!  I don't hold it against those German kehillos or Telshe-derived
Minyanim wishing to preserve the Minhag of having only one Kaddish sayer at
a time.  However, based on my experience and that of many communities and
rabbis, the desire to promote the spread of this minhag is faulty and
misguided.

I agree that gabboyim should take the responsibility of eliminating the
confusing cacophony that often results from multiple Kaddish sayers
dispersed throughout the shul. This can be resolved by having the Kaddish
sayers gather around the Bima, or in some other space.  But even in the
absence of such a takana, the prevalent practice of the multi-person
recitation has eliminated a great number of fights in Klal Yisroel.  The
rabbinic endorsement of the practice is a fulfillment of "Talmidei Chachomim
Marbim Sholom BaOlam". "Yehi Sholom B'cheileich, Shlava B'Armenosayich",
"She'HaSholom Shakul K'neged Hakol".

A lack of Sholom of competing yesomim can be ugly. Never underestimate the
yearning, perhaps unwarranted by dry Halacha alone, that Jews have for
honoring their parents especially with Kaddish. Many, especially but not
exclusively those with a limited Ivri capacity to lead the entire davening,
see it as the primary way to show respect.  Bluntly phrased, the imposition
or even strong encouragement of the variant and perhaps older minhag, would
C"V harm Klal Yisroel.

According to many of Rav Ruderman's talmidim, he frequently quoted an
expression from the Introduction to a Sefer called "Ein Habedolach". The
author, a city Rov who spoke from wisdom as well as experience, writes,
"Mutav She'yumad Tzelem B'Heichal, V'Al Yarbeh Machlokes B'Yisrael."   His
choice of words might have been a little hyperbolic, but only a little.
Those who adopt his phrase as a  mantra of sorts will surely reap its
rewards.

Raphael Davidovich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110517/e17e12b2/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 07:01:09 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] paskening by Nevuah


On Thu, 12 May 2011 14:54:32 -0700 (PDT), Harvey Benton 
<harvw...@yahoo.com> wrote (v28i79m6):
>eliyahu paskening:
>will Eliyahu pasken by svara (from the Gemarra and/or other 
>mekoros)? or will he pasken by Ruach Hakodesh?

That's the whole reason Eliyahu didn't die.  He'll pasken from the 
Torah he learned both before, during and after the time of the 
Gemara.  And svara, of course, like any other talmid chacham.

>If by Ruach Hakodesh or Nevuah, one could always say, Torah lav 
>Bashamayim Hi - and thus discount his answers as not binding halachically.....

Not exactly.  If he tried to pasken by Ruach Hakodesh or Nevuah, we'd 
have to kill him.  At least that's what I learned.

>However, didn't Moshe Rabeinu pasken by Nevuah with regard to Bnos 
>Tzelopchod?

Tanakh is divided into three sections because it was written through 
three different types of perception of God.  Torah, Nevuah, and Ruach 
Hakodesh.  Torah is a level far, far beyond simple Nevuah, and that's 
how Moshe received the Torah.

Lisa 





Go to top.

Message: 5
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 10:41:03 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] paskening by Nevuah


R' Micha Berger wrote:

> In any case, all of Torah rests on Moshe's nevu'ah, we couldn't
> dismiss it for pesaq or else there would be no Torah to pasqen
> from "Lo bashamayim hi" is said at the /end/ of the trip through
> the midbar for a reason. The meqalel and the question posed by
> benos Tzelafchad preceded the pasuq.

Not disputing you, I just want to suggest an even better pasuk from even
later in the Chumash: "Torah tziva lanu Moshe" - Whatever MRAH commanded,
that's Torah. (ummm... except where he specifically did it on his own, like
laining on Shabbos morning.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Groupon&#8482 Official Site
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city&#39;s best!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4dd251175dbaa47eab1st01vuc



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 20:28:53 +0300
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Was Chasam Sofer, Singular Ashkenazic Kaddish:


The prayers of someone who prays in a minyan are accepted. I never heard 
that this only applies to men.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Louisa Bieler" <louisa.bie...@googlemail.com>


>> and this benefit is relevant for men and women.
>
> This brings me the opportunity to ask a question:  is there actually
> inherent spiritual benefit for a woman to going to Shul? 




Go to top.

Message: 7
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 12:34:04 EDT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Halachic Analysis: The Hillary Photo Controversy


 
 


>> From the perspective of midevar sheqer tirchaq, the caption  should have
>> read something like " ... (Secr. Clinton's image removed  from the 
photo.)"
>> To mislead people into thinking this was the  actual scene (even if the
>> scene was set up for the photo-up) is  halachically problematic, no?

> Why should it be?  How is anyone  harmed by not seeing the whole set-up
> photo? ...[--RZS]

I'm  talking about midevar sheqer tirchaq, and you are answering me
in terms of  hezeq. Lying (leshaqeir) is assur. Misrepresenting the
truth without an  outright lie (leshanos) is only mutar in specific
circumstances:

--  
Micha  Berger              
mi...@aishdas.org         







>>>> 
Niether "midvar sheker tirchak" nor any other halachic issur or hashkafic  
problem attach to the alteration of photos that are printed in newspapers, 
with  the exception of photos that are /intended/ to mislead, e.g., printing 
a picture  of a yeshiva bochur who has been bloodied by Arabs with the 
caption, "Arab boy  beaten by Israeli police."  
 
Aside from such /intentional falsification/, no other type of alteration is 
 in any way problematic from a Torah point of view, since in this day and 
age  /everyone/ knows about photo-shopping, photo-cropping, changing the 
background  scenery, showing just one person, enlarged, cropped from a photo 
that originally  showed a group, etc etc etc.  It is perfectly well understood 
by all  literate people that photographs in newspapers are altered in myriad 
ways every  day -- enlarged, lightened, darkened, faces blurred out to 
protect witnesses,  etc etc etc etc.  
 
In the case of the particular photo presently under discussion, it was  
originally released purportedly as a photo of Important People in the Situation 
 Room, watching the take-down of Osama in real time.  As subsequently  
reported in the NY Times and many other newspapers, the SEAL invasion of the OBL 
 compound was /not/ seen in Washington in real time and the photo was 
itself,  therefore, a misrepresentation of what actually happened.  "Mrs.Clinton 
has  said she does not recall what they were  watching.... it falls
short of  what photography, at its best,  historically has been thought to 
do:  present the  truth."   (NY Times, see _http://tinyurl.com/3r56z8n_ 
(http://tinyurl.com/3r56z8n) )


Of course in the computer age, "present the truth" is exactly what  
photography no longer does, and even the NYT knows that ("historically" "at its  
best").   To attack a tiny-circulation Jewish paper for doing what it  always 
does -- delete photos of women -- is completely disingenuous and has  
nothing to do with halacha.   Personally I find the policy of deleting  women 
distasteful, but this full-throated attack on one tiny Jewish  newspaper is much 
worse than distasteful -- it is reprehensible.   Especially when the 
alleged "chillul Hashem" is being perpetrated and  disseminated by Orthodox Jews 
themselves,  who are blackening the name of  fellow Jews under the guise of 
disassociating themselves from the alleged  [non-existent] chillul Hashem.
 
Non-Jewish media only picked up and magnified the story after secular  
Jewish media, and later Orthodox media, picked it up and made "much ado about  
nothing."  In this case, literally NOTHING: an unfilled space in a  
photograph, which itself was a photograph of nothing.  Just some people  looking at 
nobody remembers what.  All the talk talk talk created a story  where there 
had been none, and it may be that the very discussion, especially  the 
negative discussion and condemnation, itself is a transgression of "lo  selech 
rachil be'amecha."
 
 

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





_____________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110517/b2745ec9/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:53:12 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Halachic Analysis: The Hillary Photo Controversy


On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:34:04PM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: Niether "midvar sheker tirchak" nor any other halachic issur or hashkafic  
: problem...

Halachic. Sheqer is as assur as eating treif.

...
: Aside from such /intentional falsification/, no other type of alteration is 
:  in any way problematic from a Torah point of view, since in this day and 
: age  /everyone/ knows about photo-shopping, photo-cropping, changing the 
: background  scenery, showing just one person, enlarged, cropped from a photo 
: that originally  showed a group, etc etc etc. It is perfectly well understood 
: by all  literate people that photographs in newspapers are altered in myriad 
: ways every  day -- enlarged, lightened, darkened, faces blurred out to 
: protect witnesses,  etc etc etc etc.  

Clarified or blurred, yes. For that matter, blurring is obvious --
people know there is someone unidentifiable behind the blur. That's a
lack of information, not misleading. But removing people without telling
them? You think it's safe to assume people expect that? How are they supposed
to know which pictures represent what happened, and which not?

In any case, your analysis about "intentional falsification" misses the
fact that shinui, not just sheqer, is generally prohibited.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 28th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Netzach: What role does
Fax: (270) 514-1507      domination or taking control play in building brotherhood?



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Saul.Z.New...@kp.org
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 15:24:04 -0700
Subject:
[Avodah] ben ish chai/hair covering


http://text.rcar
abbis.org/the-ben-ish-hai-and-women%E2%80%99s-hair-covering-an-interesting-
case-of-censorship-by-jacob-sasson/ 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110517/88bef61a/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 10
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 08:40:15 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Thinking Of Editing Shmoneh Esreh? Not So Fast


 From http://tinyurl.com/3wrtegd


A CONTEMPORARY PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE ASHKENAZIC SHMONEH ESREH AND WHY 
IT IS OUT OF ORDER

Recently, it was reported that a Rabbi from Israel, on a visit to 
America, spoke at a (nusach Ashkenaz) Shul and urged the people there 
to add the word at the end of the of in the . This Rabbi is a lover 
of and presumably he wanted to strengthen the audience's connection 
to our holy land in some way with such a gesture.

Such a proposal can seem nice and innocuous to the masses, and I can 
see people struggling to give a reason why it should be rejected. But 
doing so can open the door to other changes, and who knows where that 
could lead. And where does it end? That alone should suffice to 
reject the idea. Especially since the Shmoneh Esreh is such an 
ancient and central part of our Tefilah.

See the above URL for the rest of this article.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110518/6695232c/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 14:00:32 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Crispy Matzos on Pesach Sheini


Subject came up at minchah:
Do Sepharadim make haMotzi on crispy matzos when eaten on Pesach sheini?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 15:21:09 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Thinking Of Editing Shmoneh Esreh? Not So Fast


On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 08:40:15AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://tinyurl.com/3wrtegd

> A CONTEMPORARY PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE ASHKENAZIC SHMONEH ESREH AND WHY IT 
> IS OUT OF ORDER

Transliterations added and are mine (in case the "q"s weren't a tip-off).

> Recently, it was reported that a Rabbi from Israel, on a visit to  
> America, spoke at a (nusach Ashkenaz) Shul and urged the people there to 
> add the word at the end of the [berakhah] of [Teqa beShofar] in the
> [Shemoneh Esrei]. This Rabbi is a lover of [Eretz Yisrael] and
> presumably he wanted to strengthen the audience's connection to our holy 
> land in some way with such a gesture.

>   ... And where does it end? ...

Oh no! One might end up with Nusach "Sfard" or Nusach haGra! <grin>

WADR to the staunch supporters of Yekkishkeit at what is apparently R'
Prof YL's favorite blog (given how frequently he posts pointers to it),
the objection doesn't work given the nusachos most East Europeans and
ArtScroll-users daven. Including, I would bet, the existing nusach of
the shul hosting the talk.

Do you still daven Nusach Bavel as pasqened by R' Amram Gaon? The siddur
has been a constant evolution -- why stop it arbitrarily at the Maharil
or R' Seligman Baer? See R' Dr. Lawrence H. Schiffman's article in Kol
haMevaser July 2010
<http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2010/07/history-and
-liturgy-the-evolution-of-multiple-prayer-rites/>
(or <http://bit.ly/jlu6IR>).

It's not like he was talking about inventing a new nusach, one that adds
new kavanos to the prayers. He is talking about adopting an existing
variant. How rigidly do we have to adhere to our inherited pesaqim when
alternatives might aid kavanah -- which itself is an obligatory element
of tefillah?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 29th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       an act of kindness?



Go to top.

Message: 13
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.du...@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 18:09:47 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Crispy Matzos on Pesach Sheini


<<Subject came up at minchah:
Do Sepharadim make haMotzi on crispy matzos when eaten on Pesach sheini?>>
Prefatory question:  do they have the minhag (not by any means universal or even well sourced) to even eat matzo on Pesach Sheini?

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com


____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110518/65beaa15/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 15:53:05 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] ain od milvado


My bet is that this and the following discussion ("shattering of
vessels...why not pleasing") do not belong on an email list, that we
are violating Chagiga 2:1 ("Ein dorshin ... velo beMaaseh Bereishis
beshinayim, velo beMerkavah beyachid ela im ken hayah chakham umeivin
midaaso." This thread is about Maaseh haMerkavah, Hashem's Presence in
the world, the "vessels" thread about maaseh bereishis, and the audience
is far more public than 1 or 2 people.

Asking an email list your qabbalah questions is probably the wrong way
to go about getting these answers, LAD. Speaking halachically, not
functionally -- with the right people on the list, why couldn't it in
theory help?

But, even thinking that I'm probably sinning, my YhR makes it difficult
for me not to participate.


On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 03:43:52PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Not the same thing at all; they claim that there is a division *within*
> HKBH, and that Y is one of those parts, and in fact the part to which
> prayer should be directed.   That's very different from saying that the
> "nefesh hasheinis beyisroel" is a "chelek Eloak Mimaal mamash".  It's
> actually the exact opposite.

> *If* one looks at a person and sees only the Atzmus that's in him, then
> one may indeed address him as Hashem and worship him...

Explain how they are semantically different.

Position 1 is belief in a god who has parts, and one should pray to one
of those parts.

Position 2 is belief that someone is "literally a part of G-d above" and
worships that realization as G-d.

In either case, it's belief in divisibility. The Rambam would never
go with the phrase "cheileq E-loak" with any continuation. And, it's
worship of a non-essential part of the division.

The difference you are drawing appears to me to be only syntactic --
the people who follow position 1 use the word "God" broadly so as to
include the division "within" the concept being names, whereas you are
using the word narrowly, so that the division is outside the idea you are
naming. But still within the concept of "E-loak", as you're recognizing
the cheileq of It that within someone.

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 10:02:57PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: Is it possible that the concept of ain od milvado is:
: 1. true but not understandable to our finite and non-contradictory accepting 
: minds (e.g. how can there be an "I" or "Id" or yesh, when everything is Hashem?)
: 2. true but has at least one exception (namely bechira)
: 3. true but has no practical applications to us, since it doesn't absolve us of 
: choosing to do good (and not evil) 

I think no.s 1 and 3 are identical. It has no application because we
can't understand it anyway, and therefore we must simply act like it's
not an option.

I don't think #2 is viable. If you think that "ein od milvado" means an
obligation to be a panentheist (everything is of G-d, but G-d is more
than the totality of creation) then how can you have exceptions?

Realize that most sources outside of the Chassidic world teach
4. there are no gods, demiurges or other controlling forces nor anyone close
enough to those categories worthy of worship, but Him.

    Atah hareisa ledaas
    ki Hashem hu haE-lokim
    ein od milvado
        - Devarim 4:35

Look at the word "od" in context. Sure sounds like Moshe is talling
them "ein od [E-lokim] milvado". Rosh haShanah 32b says it's about
"ein od malkhus", since there R' Yosi and R' Yehudah debate whether
it can be included as one of the 10 pesuqim for Malkhus in RH Mussaf.

Tiqunei Zohar, tiquna 55 (88a) speaks about the unity of the Godhead,
"bela pirud ubela shituf". Again, not about creation being of Him. Based
on what RZS wrote above, the TZ is denying "position 1" and does not
speak to "position 2". And on 122b it's more clear
    Ki H' Hu haE-lokim bshamayim mimaal ve'al haaretz mitachas ein od
    ve'is aver de'isqarei "Elohim" ushaltanusei bekhol ar'ah

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 29th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       an act of kindness?



Go to top.

Message: 15
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 16:44:25 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] shattering of vessels...why not pleasing??


On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 02:29:16PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: according to this site, the vessels of tohu (medrash) did not please
: Hashem, although they serve a purpose (e.g. in order to be
: destroyed)... if so, why were : they created?

: http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/380568/je
: wish/Shattered-Vessels.htm

Your quote answers your question:

: Thus Tohu was a primordial form of existence that "was created in order to be 
: destroyed, and destroyed in order to be rebuilt" in a superior form(see Mevo 
: L'Chachmat HaKabbala part 2, shaar 6, ch. 7)...

As R' Kook would put it, the general concept of evolution was built
into the process of creation. Hashem created iteratively... Creation is
inherently imperfect, because our being betzelem E-lokim is meaningless
without our having an opportunity to play a role in its perfection. Thus,
it's repeatedly rebuilt a new, one plane better than the prior. And
built through the elevation of the previous, even less perfect, pieces
of what came before.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 29th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       an act of kindness?



Go to top.

Message: 16
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 16:59:54 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Inviting Someone On Shabbos Who Uses the Eruv,


On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 01:14:13PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>> Rav Aahron Soloveichik held that anyone who uses the Chicago Eruv in
>> West Rogers Park is being Mechalel Shabbos D'Oraisa B'Shogeg. And that
>> those who gave a Hechsher to it are Machti Es HaRabbim B'Meizid.

> In words, there's a distinction between professional rabbis, who ought
> to know the halacha even when it's convoluted, and normal people, who,
> in practice, may not have the time or ability to learn through all the
> sugyos by themselves.

Actually, if RHM was medayeiq in his langueage, RAS assumes the rabbis
are acting bemeizid.

We're not talking about a class of people think they know the inyan
and erred in pesaq. We're talking about rabbanim who are culpable for
opening their mouths when they ought to know they're ignorant, or who
deep down know it's pasul but whose YhR deludes them into accepting
broken arguments in favor.

The reason why I found it hard to take your earlier words at face value:
> In words, there's a distinction between professional rabbis, who ought
> to know the halacha even when it's convoluted, and normal people, who,
> in practice, may not have the time or ability to learn through all the
> sugyos by themselves.

I think everyone ought to know the halakhah even when it's convoluted.
The implied division into kinds, as though being an LOR makes a halachic
distinction.

As I wrote you off-list, I was happier with your other answer, that my
quibbling over what shegegah means -- one forgetting vs one aveirah beshogeig
-- was implausible.

> Arguably professional rabbis have a responsibility to review hilchos
> Shabbos every Shabbos, and you might be able to argue that neglecting
> that obligation induces a new shegagah. I don't see how you can say
> this about RYL's friends, whom he portrays as relying on poskim rather
> than being poskim.

As implied from the above, I'd faster argue it's criminal negligance and
(at least borderline) meizid. But only if they really made a mistake
through negligance. In the case of the WRP Eruv, WADR to RAS, I don't
think that is is SO open-and-shut that we can only attribute leniency
to negligence or having negi'os.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 29th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       an act of kindness?


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 79
**************************************

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..."


< Previous Next >