Avodah Mailing List

Volume 01 : Number 031

Saturday, August 29 1998

• RE: Ba'al Nefesh - Big Heart- Love of Hashem
• Rav Hirsch
• [none]
• [none]
• Re: Avodah V1 #30
• Re: your mail
• Re: Avodah V1 #30
• R' Hedel
• Re: Minhag, psak and bein hashemashos
• Time

-----Original Message-----
From:   INTERNET:avodah@aishdas.org 
Sent:   Wednesday, August 26, 1998 9:33 PM
To:     INTERNET:avodah-digest@aishdas.org
Subject:        Re: Ba'al Nefesh 

I always understood a Ba'al Nefesh to mean a person with a Big Heart.
A person with a - Big Heart - full of Love of Hashem and his Mitzvos will,
because of his love of Hashem, fulfil a Mitzvoh with as much detail as
possible.  He will savour the fine details with relish.
Love of Hashem transcends man made concepts such as Musser, Yeshivish and
Chasidus
A simple solution to a complex problem?
Doing simple things well is the key to managing complex problems
The only thing wrong with "Enjoying keeping Hashem's Mitzvos" is that you
will forget to look after yourself, 
Besides we're currently in the age of "feelings"

Enjoy being a Ba'al Nefash.

mendel

Although there is some truth to RCB's comments regarding Rav Hirsch's
Hashkafot as being more 19th century, I find that his understanding of
the Nefesh and his  psychologyical analysis of what makes a man tick are
just as relevant for today as they were last century. In his Perush on
Chumash I am amazed again and again at how his insights can be taken 
and used straight in a Drasha by any Rav around the world. To cite one
example - his short comment on the Pasuk "velo shomu el Moshe mikotzer
ruach etc." at the beginning of Vaera could have been written expressely
for the nineties.
B.t.y Pai is still struggling to continue through it's Kibbutzim and the
school of Chorev in Yerushalayim, where I have the honor of being a
teacher. The student body would probably not consider themselves Pai but
at least part of the school's board and administartion would, and try to
educate in the spirit of Pai's philosophy.
Avi

subject: chafetz chaim

Shraga Rothbart writes

>>  I find it a little bit funny that it is being made to sound as if the
>> Chofetz Chaim was the first person to introduce the concept of a baal
>> nefesh yachmir

Nevertheless, it is generally recognized that the Mishnah Berurah
does push the attitude that one should try and avoid issues that
are subject to machlokes and to fulfill all the possible opinions.
In fact I suspect that this was one of the reasons that the Mishna Berura
"won" over the Arukh Ha-shulchan.

This was clearly not his invention, as Shraga points out, but he
developed it further. In fact the Briskers were even more famous
for inventing ways to keep all possible shitot. People have pointed
out that the Brisker shita of blowing shevarim with 5 blasts 
(to fulfill the mitzvah accorrding to both opinions) is
actually due to Rav J.B. Soloveitchik when he was a child and accepted
by Rav Chaim Brisk.
There is also a story told that once the chafetz chaim heard a shofar
blast on rosh hashana afternoon and jokingly commented that that this
must be some briskers still blowing shofar.

I was confused by Shraga's connection of "baal nefesh yachmir" with the
mussar movement. I fail to see the connection. As I just showed the
Briskers and especially Rav Velve Soloveitchik was a big fan of
"baal nefesh yachmir" and were not big advocates of mussar.

Finally it was mentioned that Rav Kotler tried to have the Mishnah
Berurah accepted. Does anyone have evidence of this? I assumed that
this was a general acceptance and not that individuals pushed the idea.
Chazon Ish also is generally accepting of Mishnah Berurah though he
disagrees in several places.
I have seen opinions today that the Mishnah Berurah has the same status
as the Shulchan Arukh and that an era has ended and one can no longer
disagree with it. Obviously Chazon, Rav M. Feinstein, Rav Soloveitchik
and many others disagreed with this approach. However, it would not
surprise me if it is accepted within a generation or two.
The shulchan arukh itself was very controversial and was fully
accepted several generations later (beating the Levush) only after the 
the supercommentaries were composed.

Eli Turkel

Subject: bein hashemashos

    Rav Bechhofer jokingly says that he is safer discussing hashkafa
than the laws on bein hashemashos. So I will try and combine them.

In the recent daf yomi discusson of bein hashemashos some of us looked
into this more carefully. I have become completely convinced that
physical evidence is on the side of the Gra and geonim and against
Rabbenu Tam. Anyone who has been in Israel clearly sees that
the sky is completely dark 15-20 minutes after sunset. The sunset
of Rabbenu Tam takes place with the stars fully shining.  In fact one 
of the defenses of Rabbenu Tam is that he was only discussing
northern Europe and not Israel (I have never been to Iraq but suspect
it is closer to Israel than Europe in terms of sunsets).
Hence, it is clear to me that the 72 minutes depend on the location
and I agree with Rav Bechhofer that it should depend on the time of
the year. It is clear from other gemaras that to establish night one
actually looks at the stars, they didn't have digital watches in those 
days.  So bein hashemashos should depend on the actual physical facts 
at that evening in that place.
In general time o in the Gemara is based on "shaot zemaniot".
A similar discussion occurs in the time between eating meat and milk.
Do the 6 hours vary from season to season (and so be much shorter
in the winter). The gemara connects this to the time between meals
which clearly varies between seasons. On the other hand the time
for digestion or for food to decay from the teeth is clearly
independent of the seasons.

That brings me to the haskafa question. Given that (to me) the astronomical
facts completely support the Gra can one change his minhag from
Rabbenu Tam to the Gra? In this case it is easier than most since
most Israeli communities and many abroad already accept the opinion 
of the geonim.  It is well known that Rav Chaim Brisk did not wear 
tefillin on chol hamoed against the Ramah because he was convinced that 
the Ramah was wrong and there was not even a safek. While not being in his 
category can one decide that physical evidence is so overwhelming on the 
side of the geonim, Gra, Shulcan Arukh harav and others that one can take 
on that opinion?

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

In a message dated 98-08-27 20:44:47 EDT, you write:

<< He has this habit of making arguments from personal  interpretation that
run counter to masorah.>>
QUESTION: Mah ha'raash? Didn't Ibn Ezra, RaMBaM and that politician Abravanel
do the same? 

<< Although consistently having five or more such  observations a day
certainly affected the character of the mailing list. >>
OBSERVATION: Now that's a different story. Sounds like (and I am too new to
the list to have read all of his postings) the fellow is on a converesionary
crusade of some sort. To assert "kablu da'ati" or else I'll wear you down does
not have to be tolerated. There was a fellow by the name of R. Eliezer
(HaGodol) who got booted out of a chat room because he just wouldn't let go.
No? 
   

I am grateful for R' Eli's substanial support. On that basis I will dare
to continue the conversation somewhat further!

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Eli Turkel wrote:

> Subject: bein hashemashos
> 
> In general time o in the Gemara is based on "shaot zemaniot".

While this is the way we have been taught from early on, we should note
that there are dissenters - not in the area of bein hashemashos, but
rather in the area of zman kerias shma. The She'arim Mitzuyanim B'Halacha
in Hil. Keri'as Shma brings (17:1) those who hold that the hours are
fixed, three 60 min. hours from sunrise. The most eminent among them,
although not quoted by him, is the Terumas HaDeshen (121). The Pnei
Yehoshua in Berachos Kuntres Acharon writes that sha'os zemaniyos are an
invention of the Rambam!

> That brings me to the haskafa question. Given that (to me) the astronomical
> facts completely support the Gra can one change his minhag from
> Rabbenu Tam to the Gra? In this case it is easier than most since
> most Israeli communities and many abroad already accept the opinion 
> of the geonim.  It is well known that Rav Chaim Brisk did not wear 
> tefillin on chol hamoed against the Ramah because he was convinced that 
> the Ramah was wrong and there was not even a safek. While not being in his 
> category can one decide that physical evidence is so overwhelming on the 
> side of the geonim, Gra, Shulcan Arukh harav and others that one can take 
> on that opinion?
> 

This is a very good question, one I have grappled with for several years,
since having reached the same conclusion as R' Eli after a similar
process.

In line with the dichotomy between EY and CHUL, it is important to note
the Tzitz Eliezer 17:62 who firmly states that minhag EY is definitively
like the Gra & Ba'al Ha'Tanya, and brings the following story (thanks to
R' Gershon Schaffel for telling me about it):

Once there died in Yerushalayim one of the elder rabbonim from CHUL, a
great talmid chochom and yerei shomayim, on a Shabbos morning. Towards
evening, the Rebbitzin of this talmid chochom came to RYC Zonnenfeld's
home and requested, since her husband was always machmir like RT, that
RYC, as the president of the Chevra Kadisha, command that the tahara not
begin until after RT's time for Motzo'ei Shabbos (as the custo was to
begin the tahara ASAP according to minhag Yerushalayim not to delay
burials at all).

RYC responded that in Y-m the halacha was determined according to the
Ge'onim (=the Gra & Ba'al HaTanya), and although an individual may be
machmir personally, in a public matter the minhag could not be changed.

In the meratime, the CK's gabbai came in and told RYC that another
distinguished person had passed away, and they entered into a discussion
of some question. The widowed Rebbitzin overheard the conversation, and
requested, that since there was another burial to be performed now in the 
city, that they do the tahara for that person first, and for her husband
afterwards.

RYC responded that since her husband had died before the second Rav,
according to minhag Y-m the CK was to do her husband's tahara first. RYC
consoled her on her husband's death, but explained that since there was a
significant and fundamental issue here, he could not pasken in a manner
that might damage the holy and ancient minhagim of Yerushalayim.

YGB 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In a message dated 98-08-28 12:45:27 EDT, you write:

<< 
 << Although consistently having five or more such  observations a day
 certainly affected the character of the mailing list. >>
 OBSERVATION: Now that's a different story. Sounds like (and I am too new to
 the list to have read all of his postings) the fellow is on a converesionary
 crusade of some sort. To assert "kablu da'ati" or else I'll wear you down
does
 not have to be tolerated. There was a fellow by the name of R. Eliezer
 (HaGodol) who got booted out of a chat room because he just wouldn't let go.
 No?  >>

Without commenting on the specific issues of this case, I don't understand why
frequent posting to the list is a problem. If there is someone who's postings
one doesn't care to read, whatever the reason, a simple delete will suffice. 

Shabbat shalom
Joel

 We've been discussing the dismissal of R' Hendel from our list and I
would like to weigh in with my opinion, for what its worth.  I don't think
we need to make any "secure" lists for the discussion of sensitive
subjects, we are all adults and this list itself is supposed to be a high
level discussion group for people who have something intellegent to
contribute, regardless of the subject.  Devarim Shebitzinah should not be
discussed with people who are immature and will misunderstand the material
being discussed, but I don't think that our group fits this description.
The problem with R' Hendel's posts were not the subject matter. in my
opinion, but the fact that he presented his biblical interpretations as if
they were authoratative even though they were often contradictory to
Chazal.  If someone wants to present observations from the pesukim, and
demonstrate where he thinks this seems to contradict chazal, this is a
legitamate intellectual inquiry, and we must try to understand it.  But he
consistently presented his interpretations as if this is the
"Summary"...as you all are familiar with.  As if what he observed was the
truth.  None of us know the truth, we can only present our opinions and
try to understand things better.  I also strongly oppose the establishment
of some sort of rabbinical censorship over our forum.  I will discuss this
further in future posts after shabboss IY'H.
Good Shabbos
Shaul Weinreb

>>>That brings me to the haskafa question. Given that (to me) the
astronomical facts completely support the Gra can one change his minhag
from Rabbenu Tam to the Gra?<<<

Obviously the GR"A did not have any misgivings about disagreeing with R"T
when he saw fit.  "Ah, but I'm not the GRA!" you say.  But might not the
GRA have said "Ah, but I'm not R"T"?

The issue of tefillin on chol hamoed and zmanim are pure halachic issues
and do not necessarily fall into the guidelines of "al titosh torat imecha"
as do minhagim.  Let's not confuse psak with minhag.

My view, which others on the list have disagreed with in the past, is that
we follow emes whether it discovered by R"T, the GR"A, or you and me.  The
GR"A wasn't right because the GR"A said so, the GR"A was right because
empirically we know his position to be closer to the truth then that of
R"T.  YGB has taken basically the same stand (although he has not openly
asserted this formulation) in expressing his right to disregard R' Moshe's
view in light of what he feels is emes.

-Chaim B.

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> > In general time o in the Gemara is based on "shaot zemaniot".
>
> While this is the way we have been taught from early on, we should note
> that there are dissenters - not in the area of bein hashemashos, but
> rather in the area of zman kerias shma. The She'arim Mitzuyanim B'Halacha
> in Hil. Keri'as Shma brings (17:1) those who hold that the hours are
> fixed, three 60 min. hours from sunrise. The most eminent among them,
> although not quoted by him, is the Terumas HaDeshen (121). The Pnei
> Yehoshua in Berachos Kuntres Acharon writes that sha'os zemaniyos are an
> invention of the Rambam!
>

Rav Beinish chapter 12 discusses this at great length.  He notes that the Tosfos
HaRosh (Berachos3b) and  the Shach also seems to hold that the hours are equal.
(Yoreh Deah 184 7).  The Beis Yosef (O.H. 431) however claims that the Terumas
HaDeshen agrees with the Rambam - that they are unequal. The Igros Moshe also
argues against equal hours (O.H. II #2).  The majority opinion is that the hours
are not equal.

> > That brings me to the haskafa question. Given that (to me) the astronomical
> > facts completely support the Gra can one change his minhag from
> > Rabbenu Tam to the Gra?

Rav Beinish [HaZmanim B'Halacha] summarizes the situation in his introduction.
"It is well known that the majority of Rishonim hold by Rabbeinu Tam and this is
the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch and this was the actual practice in Europe until
World War I.....However, in our day the general practice is like the Gaonim and
even those who follow Rabbeinu Tam  - it is only to be Machmir e.g.,  end of
Shabbos...
The position of the Gaonim was almost unknown in the time of the Rishonim. It is
first mentioned by Maharam Alshekar (who lived at the time of the Beis Yosef).
The view of the Gaonim is not mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch and is rarely cited
in the literature. However, starting from the time of the Gra and the Bal HaTanya
- who agree with the Gaonim - there started to be a discussion of this shita. It
still was not actual followed in Europe until World War I.  He has an extensive
discussion of each country and the history of the shift between Rabbeinu Tam and
the Gaonim.

He notes [page 420] that starting from WWII the accepted practice became the
shita of the Gaonim. There were some holdouts - notably the Satmar Rebbe [Divrei
Yoel O.H. #18] and the Klausenberger Rebbe [Sefer Shefa Chaim letters I #11-20].
I have been told that Satmar continued following the shita of Rabbeinu Tam for
Kabbolas Shabbos even in America. I was also told that when the Satmar Rebbe was
in Israel - his car was stoned when he drove around Erev Shabbos according to the
shita of Rabbeinu Tam.

We see in fact that the official position has changed over time - though it is
not clear why. Rabbeinu Tam is now only a Chumra.


                                  Daniel Eidensohn

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]