Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 004

Friday, September 25 1998

• Re: Bracha L'vatala
• Was Re: Amoroic Right to Dispute, Succah on Shemini Atzeres
• Re: Bracha L'vatala
• Re: History of Halacha
• Re: T'cheyles
• RE: Conservative movement and its dangers
• Ashkenazic/Sefardic split
• Psak:Theoreticalvs Practical
• Re: Conservative movement and its dangers
• re: Baal Nefesh
• Re: chumros on aseret y'mai tshuvah
• Re: chumros

In message , Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes
>It would be interesting for R' Daniel or someone else familiar with R'
>Moshe's opinions to respond, because R' Moshe writes that only the seven
>names that cannot be erased require geniza. I will start from that here
>me'sevara d'nafshi.
>

I would as well 

>Yet we know that many Poskim hold one is yotzei a brach with "Rachmana" as
>a shem.
>
From this we deduce that the parameters of geniza are not equivalent to
>those of shem in a bracha.
>
>It may well be that the parameters of shem l'vatala resemble those of shem
>of a bracha, not those of shem of geniza.
>

Yes, I can definitely see a possible distinction between shem of bracha
and shem of geniza. But even if you do not make the linkage to geniza, I
thought the example about which they were specifically arguing was
pertinent, because the issue that was being argued was about misuse of
psukim of Torah, and particularly the Shem (ie for healing or a form of
kishuf) by speaking them out in an impermissible manner.  Now that
situation would seem to be a lot closer to the bracha l'vatala situation
- which, after all is using the formulation of the Rabbis (ie a bracha)
and the Shem by speaking them out in an impermissible manner.


>This may be because geniza as a parameter is dervide from the stones of a
>"holy" mizbei'ach.
>
>Shem of a bracha, on the other hand, need not necessarily have
>implications of "holiness." 
>

I can see the sense of this, and maybe that would be the answer of the
Bach to the Shach's linkage of the two.  But given that the Shach uses
the concept of erasing of the Shem as linked to the issue of saying
psukim over a wound, which is hard to fit into the category of "stones
of the mizbeiach", it seems more difficult for me to justify this as his
reasoning.  To shrug off the Shach, one would need to draw a distinction
between whispering over a wound and a bracha l'vatala.

>Your turn!
>Gmar Tov,
>YGB

Gmar Tov

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Michael Frankel wrote:

> wounds, and with no wish to needlessly inflame litvish hearts,

Too late :-) !

> especially the dor shi'vi'ie (a litvak honauris causa) by dwelling on a
> topic which may remind them/him of my lack of intent to spend shimini
> atzeres in the succoh, and hoping to extricate myself from this

This is clearly an invitation!  On what grounds?

> endlessly running-on sentence, I will forbear to do so at present.
> 
> Mechy Frankel				frankel@hq.dswa.mil    

YGB

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

On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> I can see the sense of this, and maybe that would be the answer of the
> Bach to the Shach's linkage of the two.  But given that the Shach uses
> the concept of erasing of the Shem as linked to the issue of saying
> psukim over a wound, which is hard to fit into the category of "stones
> of the mizbeiach", it seems more difficult for me to justify this as his
> reasoning.  To shrug off the Shach, one would need to draw a distinction
> between whispering over a wound and a bracha l'vatala. 

Well, we probably could, but my main intention was the yishuv of the
Chayei Adam. Has that not been accomplished?

YGB

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

<<
Should we be bound just on Rambam vs.
Rabbenu Tam, which I suppose corresponds to Sephardi/Ashkenazi?
Which leads to the question of when, and why, did the split 
happen?
>>

The Ashkenaz / Sfarad split started with the divide between Christianity and
Islam.  As Islam took hold in the Middle East and Northern Africa and then
further subdivided, communication between the different empires was not always
smooth.  At some point, it became difficult ( if not impossible ) to get
messages to the geonim in what is now Iraq ( Sura and Pumbetisa are suburbs of
Baghdad ).  This forced those countries not in contact with the geonim to
develop their own halachic interpretations.  The Christian countries were cut
off for a longer time than the Islamic empire, and those countries became what
is now known as Ashkenazim.  The Jews in Moslem lands developed differing
customs, etc. and those are the Edot Mizrach.  Spain, which at the
significant, formative era was under Moslem control thus took on Sfaradi law
and custom, even though it was in Europe ( which was mostly Christian ).

<<
First we need to ask if any decision rendered at a time when no one could
possibly follow through on the decision can be considered "p'sak". How could
RSRH have referred to techeiles in any way but theoretically?
>>

Against this line of thought, I'd like to present an halacha in the g'mara
which talks about "yotzey dofen v'haba acharav".  How many women at the time
of the gmara were alive, let alone having children, after a caesarean birth?
And yet the g'mara discusses that exact situation.  Certainly the g'mara was
issuing a psak, but at the time it was only a theoretical situation.  It took
us until the 20th century for the theory to become a reality.

Eliyahu Teitz

Look in any Jewish publication which has an article about computers, and
you will be sure to find many warnings about the dangerous material which
can so easily be found on the Internet. Most people presume that those
warnings are referring to sexually explicit material, but that is only
part of the story. Kefira is another large part of it. In the real world,
it is usually not difficult to avoid entering non-halachic institutions
and situations. But in cyberspace, it is all too easy to expose oneself
to their theology and thoughts.

Rabbi Clark writes: <<< Today the Conservative movement is adrift.  Only
a tiny number of Conservative Jews who have not been ordained by JTS keep
Shabbat or taharat ha-mishpahah.  Indeed, many Conservative rabbis send
their own children to Orthodox day schools.  Not only is the Conservative
movement failing to produce "frum" Conservative Jews, it is failing in
its efforts to halt the tide of intermarriage within Conservative ranks.
>>>

So I thought also, until I started going into the Judaism chat room on
AOL, and the soc.jewish newsgroup. I found a large number of people who
were quite proud of their Jewishness, and considered themselves to be
quite observant, except that they were observant of non-halachic
adaptations of Judaism. I engaged in many extended conversations with
them, in the hopes of (a) trying to understand their point of view so
that I could more effectively mekarev them, and (b) actually trying to
mekarev them.

What actually happened was that I doubt I made much of an impact on
anyone, although I'd like to hope that I planted some small seeds which
might someday sprout, even if it takes decades. As far as trying to
understand their point of view, I am relieved to say that little or
nothing of their theology made sense to me, and so I felt that I could
continue that path unscathed. But I did not appreciate the insidious
effects of being in the company of kofrim.

I made several friendships over time, as I have done here in Avodah, and
on MJ and BM. I found intelligent people, who had spent time thinking
over their philosophies, just as I have done. These were not people who
chose Conservative or Reform because it was *easy*. They really and
honestly *believed* it! And although their logical arguments did not move
me any more than mine moved them, the fact that they were so very sincere
shook me to the bone, and I thank HaShem that I decided to escape while
my hashkafos were still intact. Or at least I think they're intact...

Lest anyone think that I am agreeing or disagreeing with any opinions
posted thus far on Avodah, let me point out this: I have no idea what the
statistics are. I don't know whether there are more or fewer "frum
Reformers" out there today, as compared to 10 or 50 years ago. My only
point is that they DO exist, and they are NOT to be trifled with.

Rabbi Clark also wrote <<< In truth, I do not understand Harry's critique
of the Solomon Shechter schools.  Although they do not teach halakhah
strictly speaking, they expose their students to Ivrit, Humash, Jewish
history and a wide range of halakhot.  Certainly this is preferable to
public school! >>>

And Harry Maryles responded <<< Without the Solomon Schechter Schools,
Most of these kids would have gone to public schools and would have most
likely been lost to assimilation.   So are we better off with the Solomon
Schechter school system, or are we better off without them?  This is what
I have been pondering for a long time. >>>

I would compare this situation to one who must choose between hearing the
shofar at a Conservative institution or not hearing it at all. I have
heard Rav Soloveitchik most often quoted as the originator of the issur
to even listen to that shofar from outside the building, but I've heard
it in the name of many other gedolim as well. 

I was taught that the reason for the boycott on Conservatives is that we
should wish all the non-halachic "shuls" to vanish from existence, and we
prevent that from happening when we grant them any kind of recognition at
all. Further, we recognize that if this wish is fulfilled, then there
will suddenly be no place for those Jews to go, but that is a GOOD thing,
because then they will be motivated to seek out a genuine source of
Torah. Further, we recognize that only SOME of them will actually go to
the effort of trying to find some real Torah, but that is BETTER than the
current situation, because right now NONE are motivated to look beyond
their current situtations.

A partial Torah is no Torah at all. We are not satisfied with
half-measures. In short, unless I am wrong about the reasons for the
issur re shofar, then we would be IN GENERAL better off without
non-halachic schools, just as we would IN GENERAL be better off without
non-halachic places of worship.

I say all the above with the full knowledge that there are many baalei
teshuva today, MYSELF INCLUDED, who very well might not be shomer mitzvos
were it not for the non-halachic places where WE grew up. But in the
*long* run, I suspect that we'd have even more successes if there were no
synagogues or schools other than ones truly dedicated to HaShem and
Torah.

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> <<
> Should we be bound just on Rambam vs.Rabbenu Tam, which I suppose corresponds to
> Sephardi/Ashkenazi? Which leads to the question of when, and why, did the split
> happen?
> >>
>
> The Ashkenaz / Sfarad split started with the divide between Christianity and
> Islam.  As Islam took hold in the Middle East and Northern Africa and then
> further subdivided, communication between the different empires was not always
> smooth.  At some point, it became difficult ( if not impossible ) to get
> messages to the geonim in what is now Iraq ( Sura and Pumbetisa are suburbs of
> Baghdad ).  This forced those countries not in contact with the geonim to
> develop their own halachic interpretations.

Islam came to power in the 700's. There was encouragement from the Islamic rulers
for Jews to be dependent upon the Gaonim in Babylonia (Iraq). It is also true that
the rise of the Ashkenazic Torah centers did occur at the time of the decline of
the Gaonim 900- 100. However, there had been a prior split in practice between
Eretz Yisroel and Bavel. There was a tendency for the Sfaradim to follow Bavel
while Ashkenaz followed minhag Eretz Yisrel. Ashkenaz was in general more isolated
and there were even accusations by the Sefaradim that the Ashkenazim didn't have a
genuine Mesora.
The Netziv in his introduction to the She'iltos indicates that the 4 captives
rather than being Divine Providence to save Yiddishkeit from the decline of the
Gaonim - actually was a large factor in their decline. Prior to this the Gaonim
had a monopoly on psak. Once scholarship started developing elsewhere there was
reluctance to listen to a distance authority especially when the Gaonim expected
to be supported financially for their authority.
"Paradoxically, perhaps the greatest internal factor which led to their [the
Gaonim] decline was the very success of the yeshivos in producing outstanding
scholars...As a result these communities could find training for their children
and answers for their halachic questions locally. This drastically lessened the
necessary financial support sent to the yeshiva and also weakened the connection
between them the the Jewish community abroad". [page 302 From Yavneh to Pumbedisa
- Artscroll]
It is interesting to note that the She'iltos was written for his son because he
wasn't a "yeshiva bochur" and learning was confined to those who were willing to
become part of the academies of the Gaonim.  The Ashkenazim  relied more on sevora
than the Sefaradim. Apparently it was only with the exile from Spain that major
conflicts arose as the Sefaradim - rich, well educated and well organized moved to
a Ashenazic communities and took over. The Shulchan Aruch was viewed as an attempt
to preserve this dominance. That is one of the reasons why the Rema wrote a
similar code to defend the Ashkenazic practices from being obliterated by the
Sefaradic migrants..

>

In sum, it was not simply differences in ability to communicate with  the Gaonim
that caused the Ashkenazic/Sefardic split.

EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:
> How many women at the time of the gmara were alive, let alone having
> children, after a caesarean birth? And yet the g'mara discusses that
> exact situation.  Certainly the g'mara was  issuing a psak, but at the
> time it was only a theoretical situation.  It took us until the 20th
> century for the theory to become a reality.

Take a look at the Igros Moshe vol 8 #38 page 250-. He raises the
question whether psak is only when there is an actual maaseh and it
only applies to that maaseh or whether psak exists independently of an 
actual event? He states initially that the psakim in the Igros Moshe are
only as suggested models for a rav to decide whether he agrees with the
reasoning. Apparently if the reasoning is agreed with than the actual
psak is from the Rav not from the Igros Moshe.

"Even though I know that there will be those who don't tudy the tshuva
but only rely on the conclusion But since the [Rav] could study the
tshuva he can rely for the time being on the conclusion. Even if when he
later decides after studying it that he disagrees than he can retract
his
psak as being an error. However, if someone wishes to rely entirely on
the conclusion in the Igros which means that I am the actual posek _I am
unsure whether I have that power_ because the ability to posken is only
for an actual event that comes to me and my ruling does not apply to
events - even similar ones - that occur in other places even if it at
the same time...Only the Sanhedrin has the ability to posken even when
there is no actual maaseh. And the primary Hora'ah of the Sanhedrin were
not involving actual cases but were instructions what to do when they
would happen. While it is the opposite with a Chachom."

Please read the rest yourself. [This  tshuva is not always clear - as
acknowledged to me by Rabbi Mordechai Tendler - but is well worth the
effort to understand it] 


Rabbi A. Farbstein zt"l (Rosh Yeshiva of Hebron Yeshiva) told me that
accepting the psak of the Igros is the same as if Reb Moshe posken for
you personally. 


There have been poskim who wrote tshuvos to themselves [i.e. theoretical
discussions] whose psak was not accepted because of this. On the other
hand the Shulchan Aruch and any other code is obviously poskening
without an actual event.

                         Daniel Eidensohn

Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> 
> In a message dated 98-09-24 09:23:57 EDT, you write:
> 
> <<
>  So are we better off with the Solomon Schechter school system, or are we
>  better off without them?  This is what I have been pondering for a long
>  time.
> 
>  HM
>   >>
> It's a great question which really extends to the whole movement. We all are
> aware of the strength of the issur of ziyuf hatora(so much so that R' avkulas
> allowed the outcome of kamtza and bar kamtza rather than allow a blemished
> korbon). However the schools and movement do sometimes keep some people within
> striking distance that would otherwise be totally lost.  I guess since they
> haven't asked us the shaila as to whether they should continue in existence
> ,we don't have to pasken. As long as individual Jewish souls are in play,we
> need to reach out to them no matter which group they affiliate with.
> 
> Gmar chatima tova
> Joel Rich

The problem is, what if a parent is contempalting sending his/her 
child to either Solomon Schechter or public school and asks your advice. 
How would you answer?

HM

I don't know if this has been mentioned.  The gemara in Pesachim discusses an halacha where a baal nefesh is machmir.  see rashi there.  It seems very close to the mishna berura's baal nefesh yachmir.

There is a minag of not eating pas palter during aseret yemai tshuvah.  Any
thoughts if that might extend to chalav Yisrael for those of us chalav stam
drinkers?

Aruch haShulchan writes that one should only adopt chumros that there is no
real need to be machmir for on a daily basis.  However, if there is a
machloket haposkim, where acc. to some poskim there is reason to be machmir
on a daily basis, adopting the stringent view during aseret y'mai tshuva
would bind one to follow this view consistantly the rest of the year.  (The
basis for this logic is R' Shmuel miBamburg, cited in the Bais Yosef, who
rejected the minhag of pas yisrael bec. one would then be bound to follow
that practice all year).  I'm puzzeled - is one really bound to a practice
that one is following b'toras chumra and not as a real psak?  Can't one say
when I can I'll be machmir, but m'ikar hadin I follow the makilim?

Aruch haShulchan writes that the takkanah of the shatz being motzi even a
baki during yamim noraim is bec. the amidah is difficult, and as an example
he writes that on Yom Kippur the added viduy is long.  Puzzeled again-
viduy is a personal chiyuv and is not something you do through shomeh koneh
with a shatz.

Just some random musings - Good Shabbos!
-CB

The gemara in pesachim 26 cites a dispute between R. Yehudah and the

Chachamim on how to do biur chametz. R. Yehudah says davka by burning and
the Chachamim say you can throw it in the sea,wind. There is also a
dispute between rashi and Tosfos whether R Yehudah law applies to the time
before pesach or to the time after pesach. There is also a dispute between
rishonim (rashi+tos) vs. (Rambam) whether we hold like the Chachamim or
Rabbi Yehudah. The Mishnah Brurah poskens (based on the rema) that in all
cases we burn in order to satisfy all opinions. I'm citing this as an
example to my earlier stated premise that the Mishnah Brurah WILL often
posken halacha in a way which will be yotze according to all opinions even
if it a chumra (ie--you must burn) this is so since the opinions aren't
contradictory (ie the Chachamim don't say you can't burn,just that you
don't have to) I hope this clarifies what I said before. Furthermore, I
really liked Akiva's post concerning the chat rooms and conservative
ideology. I believe that the best way to deal with this is to remember
that there IS an absolute truth ie Torah from Sinai. The moment that you
believe\come to the logical conclusion that Orthodox Judaism MUST be
correct than their whole position is a farce with no stronger claim than
Christianity or Buddhism. The only difference is that we must try to
influence the conservative and have them return to the truth, whereas we
don't need to deal with Christians or Buddhists. I think this underlines
one of the previous disputes on Baistefilla. It's easier to be mekarev when
you know our position is emes (whether it be through "proofs" or firm
belief) the problem is when one says I believe I'm right but I don't know
why so I can't really say why someone else's beliefs are wrong. Such a
person has no ability to be mekarev because who says your right to believe
is any stronger than the other persons. the ikur is to remember that Torah
mi Sinai MUST have happened and we're right and they are wrong---it's than
our job to be mekarev.
Elie Ginsparg

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


[ 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 ]