Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 029

Thursday, October 22 1998

• Re[2]: Titles
• Re: Observations/Reflections on Smicha
• Re[2]: Titles
• Re: Semikha
• RE: kehillah vs. congregation
• synagogue & kehilla
• Kehillos and Minhag HaMakom
• [none]
• Re: angels and eitz hada'as
• Rambam and Yerushalmi
• angels and talmud torah -- what about mada?
• Re: Kehillos and Minhag HaMakom
• Re: No subject given
• Re: Kehillos and Minhag HaMakom
• Re: No subject given
• Re: angels and talmud torah -- what about mada?
• Re[2]: angels and talmud torah -- what about mada?
• Re[2]: angels and talmud torah -- what about mada?
• Re[2]: angels and talmud torah -- what about mada?
• Re: Avodah V2 #28

     Would you call a Nurse who woks in a hospital for 43 years a DOCTOR 
     and not call a newly graudate MD, with nary a patient notched on his 
     belt a doctor?
     
     I don't think titles are granted on the basis of dedication to a 
     field, rather on the basis of meeting some criteria.
     
     Honorory titles are of course different.
     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Titles 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/22/98 1:51 AM


On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Steve. Katz wrote:
     
> Come to Skokie where rav umanhig is the most often granted s'micha and 
> where you can even get yoreh yoreh without having learned yoreh deah or 
> taken a bechinah.
> steve   katzco@sprintmail.com
     
Maybe this was the situation in the seventies (or whenever) but now there 
are specific requirement to receive the rav umanhig. They include the 
learning of chelek 1,2,3,5,6 as well as most of 4 in the shulchan orech 
(orech chaim with the perush of the mishna brurah) as well as passing tests 
on each one. I know becuase I have one of only four given out at beis 
medrash latorah ( I imagine this is what you referred to when you said 
Skokie)in the last couple of years. I'm also confused about two points.
Why is talking about angels and the way Hashem relates to us as well as the 
spiritual being a bad thread when discussing who should have the title of 
Rabbi is a good thread. I thought this was high level Torah topics. Second, 
I'm not sure of the whole point in the Rabbi discussion. Can anyone tell
me who I should call Rabbi? Choice A: someone who has dedicated his life 
to Torah and yiras shamayim, learning parts of shas as well as the parts 
of halacha which is relevant to day to day life,and has a kesher with a 
rav who he can ask sheilos to, or choice B: someone who is in a three year 
s'micha program in a yeshiva somewhere in new york , where he has a TV in 
his apartment and partakes of the finest elements of American culture. 
Will probably end up being a very respectable Baal habass, and probably 
still won't be able to answer a difficult Sheila anyways, but has an 
official s'micha because he was in a program for three years when he was 
21 years old. I'll call mister A a Rabbi much quicker. What about you? 
Elie Ginsparg
     
     
     

     I don't think this is correct.  "Rav" got Semicho circa 250-300
     
     It probably fell out of use around 400.
     
     Regards,
     Rich E. 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Observations/Reflections on Smicha 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/21/98 7:00 PM


     
     The Conferring of real Smicha, of course was discontinued about 2000 
     years ago. E

When I was learning for Semicho I had a hard time convincing a freidn of mine 
that there were "frummer" guys in yeshiva who did not have Semicho.

Being a colonel doe snot make one a better soldeir than a corporal.

Titles are not a refelction of olom hoemese, or tsidkuss, they are recognitions 
of an acheivement.

Feelings have nothing to do with it.

which is supeiror for arbo minim, a "perfect" lemon or a very ugly esrog? 
the lemon may have better midos, it's still not an esrog.



By the way, that of mine friend is Roman Catholic

Regards,
RW
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Titles 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/22/98 1:51 AM


On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Steve. Katz wrote:
     
> Come to Skokie where rav umanhig is the most often granted s'micha and 
> where you can even get yoreh yoreh without having learned yoreh deah or 
> taken a bechinah.
> steve   katzco@sprintmail.com
 Can anyone tell
me who I should call Rabbi? Choice A: someone who has dedicated his life 
to Torah and yiras shamayim, learning parts of shas as well as the parts 
of halacha which is relevant to day to day life,and has a kesher with a 
rav who he can ask sheilos to, or choice B: someone who is in a three year 
s'micha program in a yeshiva somewhere in new york , where he has a TV in 
his apartment and partakes of the finest elements of American culture. 
Will probably end up being a very respectable Baal habass, and probably 
still won't be able to answer a difficult Sheila anyways, but has an 
official s'micha because he was in a program for three years when he was 
21 years old. I'll call mister A a Rabbi much quicker. What about you? 
Elie Ginsparg
     
     
     

At my wedding (Aug 1969), several distinguished Rabbonim were
kibbitsing with Rav Chaim Zimmerman, then Rosh Yeshivah at Skokie, I
believe. One of the Rabbis said to Reb Chaim: "Of all the Rabbis here,
you are the only one who doesn't have Semikha". To Which Rav Chaim with
a twinkle answered. "You're right, I don't have semikha. But which one
of you gentlemen is going to have the Hutspa to give me semikha?!"

			Aryeh

I had written:

>> Thus, as R. YGB notes, there is very little in common between the
>> kehillah and the contemporary synagogue, which serves primarily as a
>> house of worship.  In those communities in which a single synagogue
>> serves the entire Orthodox community and binds them together, there
>> would be a basis to look at the halakhot regarding kehillah
>>governance for a precedent regarding the governance of the shul.  But I
>>doubt such halakhot would be binding.

gershon.dubin@juno.com asks:
>	Why not?  This would be a classic application of "minhag hamakom",  and
>many of the takanos which bnei ha'ir are empowered by the Gemara to
>institute.  Are you saying that without power to punish offenders the
>halachos wouldn't be binding?

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com asks:

>     Tangential to this, just how many communities today i nNorht America
>    have something akin to the traditional Kehillo?  I can think of
>     several cahssidic communities as candidtates (eg New Sqaure perhaps)?

>     For non-Chassidic communities - maybe Deal or perhaps Elizabeth, NJ
>     (expecialyl when the late Seniro Rabbi Teitz was alive and well))

Evidently I have failed to clearly communicate the basis for my posting
to the effect that the "kehillah" and the contemporary congregation are,
in my view, utterly disparate entities.  Today, we are wont to refer to
a community or congregation as a "kehillah."  But this is not the
"kehillah" discussed in the halakhic sources.  Rather, the kehillah was
a form of self-government.  Residents voted on communal appointments,
such as rav or hazan, on property and commercial taxes, for candidates
for town council, on various kinds of religious and commercial
legislation (such as anti-gambling and protectionist measures) and more.
 Moreover, voting was usually not strictly democratic: the consensus of
later posekim is to require rov minyan (numerical majority) and rov
binyan ("qualitative" majority, taking into account wealth, education,
etc.).  Perhaps most importantly, the kehillah was empowered to enforce
its rules, both through fines (hefker bet din hefker) and bans (herem,
niddui).  To my knowledge, there is no analogue to such an institution
in America.

In response to Gershon's question: I believe that a new shul would be
permitted, for example, to make its decisions following a perfectly
democratic vote, and disregard the rov binyan that halakhah requires of
the kehillah.  The reason such halakhot are not binding, I think, is not
because synagogues today have little enforcement power over their
members, but because, as I have written, modern congregations are not
kehillot.

I do not understand what you mean when you suggest that congregational
decisions are a "classic" application of minhag ha-makom.  Surely this
cannot refer to the setting of membership dues or election of officers.
But I cannot think of what other congregational decisions you may be
thinking of.  In my experience, most halakhic issues are not decided by
the membership but by the rav of the congregation.  His authority, I
would think, derives from his role as mara de-atra.  Indeed, this role
too is far less authoritative than it once was.

Of course, there are communities which are relatively unified under a
single mara de-atra.  I believe this is what Richard has in mind.  The
Breuer's community in Washington Heights would be another example of
what he describes in the mitnagdic world.  But, although such
communities may have less diversity in terms of pesak and minhag, they
do not, I think, come close to being a "kehillah" in the halakhic sense.
 Regarding hasidic communities, I have no real knowledge, and I invite
informed reports.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

driceman@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
clarifies:
>Actually, I was less interested in its capacity to tax and more
>interested in its capacity to ensure uniformity of practice within its
>domain.  In particular, if a synagogue is not a kehilla can it ever
>change its own minhagim, and by what mechanism? How does a new synagogue
>aquire minhagim?

First, sorry for my obtuseness in misunderstanding your original
question.  When you speak of uniformity of practice and "minhagim," I
assume you mean within the synagogue precincts.  If so, I believe that
the rav of a new shul has the authority as mara de-atra (with "atra"
used in a fairly limited sense) to establish the minhagim to be followed
in the shul with respect to tefillah and related hanhagot.  Similarly, a
new rav should have the authority to change these.  Perhaps I am missing
something fundamental here.  Is there authority for the proposition that
the shul members should decide or could overrule the rav on such a
matter?

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Back to the lack of Minhag America, could it be related to the lack of
kehillos?

In other words, if someone moves to a neighborhood where everyone else /does/
belong to a given kehillah (e.g. a Chassidic environ dominated by one group of
Chassidim, Washington Heights, or the like), would he be obligated to conform
to their minhag?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5956 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 22-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Subject: learning halachos = talmud Torah ?
	On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

>Simple: masechet negaim is a kiyum of talmud torah, as is all study of
>halachot.  Studying angelic properties is not.  

	Could you provide a source that learning halacha (assuming
audibly and with understanding) is a kiyum of talmud Torah?  I would
think it to be a hechsher mitzva for doing the mitzva the halacha
describes.  

	-Herschel Ainspan (ainspan@watson.ibm.com)

Chaim Brown <C1A1Brown@aol.com> writes:
: Simple: masechet negaim is a kiyum of talmud torah, as is all study of
: halachot.  Studying angelic properties is not.

Frankly, I'm very concerned about the phrase "as is all study of halachos". It
sounds as if Chaim is ch"v limiting the mitzvah of Talmud Torah to halachah,
and not aggadita. Or at least, not those aggados that have nothing to do with
practice.

This encourages only learning the mechanics, and any yedi'os which may help
kavannah while practicing (after all, most mitzvos don't require kavannah
lihalachah) are neglected. Our education system has gone too far in this
direction already. (With a number of notable exceptions.)

Redutio ad absurdum: There are only a handful of halachos mentioned in Nach.
(Which, as a reminder, are not considered anything more than proofs of the
Torah sheba'al Peh of that halachah.) Does this mean that studying Nach is not
a mitzvah of Talmud Torah?

> Talmud torah certainly is.  Counting the # of angels that dance on the head of
> a pin is not.  That's why, as I wrote, all sifrei mussar, hashkafa, etc. all
> open with a justification for the work as advancing yirat shamayim

FWIW, the number of angels on the head of a pin thing was about whether that
number is finite an infinite. It gets into a discussion of infinitesimals,
whether G-d can perform the paradoxical, and other issues.

Celestial plumbing (which I have /yet/ to hear a good justification for) does
directly touch on avodas Hashem. Knowing some of the properties of mal'achim
helps understand several tephillos and piyutim. Theodicy (tzadik vira lo) THE
greatest threat to yir'as shamayim, can't be addressed without knowing if
mal'achim have bechirah, whether they, when unleashed operate
indiscriminately, or distinguish between tzaddik and chotei... Ein ladavar
sof!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5956 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 22-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

En passant in Daf Yomi Yerushalmi, the Rambam poskens like the Y-mi
Pesachim 4a (Vilna ed.) that one transgresses bal yeira'eh u'bal yimatzeh
Erev Pesach after Chatzos (the Ra'avd is meisig that there is no such
thing) - see Tos. HaRid (the Ridbaz) "af'en ort."

YGB

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

In a fascinating debate about the boundaries of talmud Torah,
Chaim Brown asserts:

>>Simple: masechet negaim is a kiyum of talmud torah, as is all study of
>>halachot.  Studying angelic properties is not.

R. YGB responds:

>Is the study of Nefesh HaChaim not Talmud Torah? If not, then is the
>study of R' Chaim Brisker Talmud Torah? I see no difference between
>Chochmas Hashem Yisborach as expressed in one than in the other.

> To know what serafim, ofanim and chayos do is an essential part of Torah. I
believe it is called
>"Ma'aseh Merkava."

Personally, given the generally esoteric nature of ma'aseh merkavah, I
am not certain whether an e-mail discussion group is the ideal place for
discussion of ma'aseh merkavah.  But I do not know for certain where the
boundaries of that category lie and whether the current discussion of
angels falls within it or without it.

The category of talmud Torah, however, is one that I think is important
for all of us to define.  Specifically, R. YGB refers to the angels as
an expression of the Hokhmah of Hashem Yitbarakh.  This leads me to ask:
if study of angels qualifies as Talmud Torah, what about the study of
other Divine creations -- flowers, planets, microorganisms?  In other
words, using this defintion, does the study of botany, astronomy or
microbiology qualify as talmud Torah?  One's intuition is to say, no,
but why not?  How does this differ from questions about angels (aside
from being slightly less speculative)?

My sense is that the Rambam in fact held that all of this was talmud
Torah, as he included physics (as he defined and understood it) in his
Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah.  But I always assumed he was a bit of a da`at
yahid on the subject.

The question can be applied to the study of history as well, as we all
believe that history is nothing less than the giluy of retzon hashem in
time.  This view has no basis in the Rambam of which I am aware.  But I
know that one 20th century gadol interpreted the pasuk: Zekhor yemot
olam . . ., as an injunction to study and understand history.

I would be interested to hear people's views on this subject.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

     Right on!
     
     In theory, America should be Spanish/Potuguese/Dutch based upon the 
     original colonists...
     
     And New Yorks's was called K"K She'arith Israel
     
     Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kehillos and Minhag HaMakom 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/22/98 12:57 PM


Back to the lack of Minhag America, could it be related to the lack of 
kehillos?
     
In other words, if someone moves to a neighborhood where everyone else /does/ 
belong to a given kehillah (e.g. a Chassidic environ dominated by one group of 
Chassidim, Washington Heights, or the like), would he be obligated to conform 
to their minhag?
     
-mi
     
-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5956 days! 
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 22-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. 
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
     

I agree with Herschel's point; that is: it's ALL TORAH


nevertheless, there are priorities as  to what to learn.  Certainly the shisho 
Sidrei Mishnno and the Gemara on them has a very high priority.  Perhaps Angels 
are not quite so high...

Rich Wolpoe






______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: No subject given
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/22/98 1:11 PM


Subject: learning halachos = talmud Torah ?
        On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
     
>Simple: masechet negaim is a kiyum of talmud torah, as is all study of 
>halachot.  Studying angelic properties is not.  
     
        Could you provide a source that learning halacha (assuming
audibly and with understanding) is a kiyum of talmud Torah?  I would 
think it to be a hechsher mitzva for doing the mitzva the halacha 
describes.  
     
        -Herschel Ainspan (ainspan@watson.ibm.com)
     

     By the way, when the first Ashkeanzim came to New York, they wnated to 
     set up a separate Minyon to daven Ashkenz within She'eirith Israel.  
     The ond-timers said no way.
     
     So the Ashkenazim (who hailed fomr Germany) started their own shul 
     (kehillo)
     
     My source is the late Dr. Hyman Gruinstein OH
     
     My conclusion is this set up the splinter mentality that produces a 
     shtibbel for every blokc <g>
     Regards,
     Rich Wolpoe 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Kehillos and Minhag HaMakom 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/22/98 12:57 PM


Back to the lack of Minhag America, could it be related to the lack of 
kehillos?
     
In other words, if someone moves to a neighborhood where everyone else /does/ 
belong to a given kehillah (e.g. a Chassidic environ dominated by one group of 
Chassidim, Washington Heights, or the like), would he be obligated to conform 
to their minhag?
     
-mi
     
-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5956 days! 
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 22-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. 
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
     

     Whoops, I misread this!
     Please disreagrd my previous entry.
     
     Dear hershel, are you saying I can learn halocho pesukko, eg Kitsur 
     without first saying Birchas haTorah?
     
     Regards,
     Rich Wolpoe
     
     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: No subject given
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/22/98 1:11 PM


Subject: learning halachos = talmud Torah ?
        On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
     
>Simple: masechet negaim is a kiyum of talmud torah, as is all study of 
>halachot.  Studying angelic properties is not.  
     
        Could you provide a source that learning halacha (assuming
audibly and with understanding) is a kiyum of talmud Torah?  I would 
think it to be a hechsher mitzva for doing the mitzva the halacha 
describes.  
     
        -Herschel Ainspan (ainspan@watson.ibm.com)
     

On Thu, 22 Oct 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

> > To know what serafim, ofanim and chayos do is an essential part of
> Torah. I believe it is called >"Ma'aseh Merkava." 
> 
> Personally, given the generally esoteric nature of ma'aseh merkavah, I
> am not certain whether an e-mail discussion group is the ideal place for
> discussion of ma'aseh merkavah.  But I do not know for certain where the
> boundaries of that category lie and whether the current discussion of
> angels falls within it or without it. 
> 

Let me recommend an excellent work called "Inner Space" by R' Aryeh
Kaplan. On a more basic level one might try my uncle R' Immanuel
Schochet's "Mystical Concepts in Chassidus." 

> My sense is that the Rambam in fact held that all of this was talmud
> Torah, as he included physics (as he defined and understood it) in his
> Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah.  But I always assumed he was a bit of a da`at
> yahid on the subject. 
> 

The Rambam states specifically that he is including all of the material in
Yesodei HaTorah because it leads to Ahavas Hashem - which indicates that
its inclusion is not meant to imply that it is Halachic, but rather it
will serve to help one fulfill the preceding halacha of Ahavas Hashem.

YGB

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

     What about some references in the Bavli:
     Torah hi v'ani tsorich lilmod, (or v'limod Ani tstorich)?
     
     Is there ANY aspect of life that is outside of Torah?
     
     Rich Wolpoe

     Nu when Kitsur SA starts with Shovis Hashem lemegdi somid is he 
     talking halocho or Ahavas Hashem?
     
     And why is the entire second sefer of the Yad called Ahava?
     
     IE is ahavas hashem a NON-Halachi issue?
     
     What about v'ohavto esh hasem b'CHOL levovcho mean?
     
I don't get these distinction

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: angels and talmud torah -- what about mada? 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/22/98 1:40 PM

     
The Rambam states specifically that he is including all of the material in 
Yesodei HaTorah because it leads to Ahavas Hashem - which indicates that 
its inclusion is not meant to imply that it is Halachic, but rather it 
will serve to help one fulfill the preceding halacha of Ahavas Hashem.
     
YGB

     Is it ok to "learn" Hilchos Yesodei HaTroah before Birchas HaTroah?
     
     Is it ok for an oveil to learM?
     
     Can this be learned on Tisho b'Ov
     
     Regards, Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: angels and talmud torah -- what about mada? 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/22/98 1:40 PM


     
     The Rambam states specifically that he is including all of the 
     material in Yesodei HaTorah because it leads to Ahavas Hashem - which 
     indicates that its inclusion is not meant to imply that it is 
     Halachic,
YGB
     

About the techeiles issue, reb micha you are not the only one who wears
it, I do and HaRav YGB also does. I also only wore it on my tallis koton
for a while, primarily for Yohara issues.  However, I have about one year
ago I put it on my weekday tallis godol and I am currently putting it on
my shabboss tallis as well.  I don't think thAt there is an issue of
yohara at all.  It is a mitzvah doraysoh, not just a hanhagah tova.
According to my understanding of halachah, every Jew is mechuyav to wear
it.  Although I know that many people might disagree with me, that is
their right to do so.  But leshitasi, it is a mitzvah lefarsem and to be
magdil torah ulehaadirah.  This is not an issue of yohara at all but
rather an issue of kol yisrael areivim zeh lazeh, and my responsibuility
to teach other Jews to be mekayem mitvos HaTorah.  I am supicious that
some people who claim to wear it only on their tallis koton because of
yohara are really only embarassed to wear it visibly because it attracts
attention to themselves.
An interesting note,  In the Radziner's introduction to his sefer Eyn
Hatecheiles,  he brings the response of HaRah Yitzchok Elchonon ZT'L when
he asked him why he doesn't put on his techeiles.  Unfortunealtly, I don't
have the sefer in front of me so you will have to trust my memory.  He
says that the "ruach Hazman" is such that people would be "mistakel" at
him and lose respect for him.  Although the general rule is to be Neelavim
veaynom olvim (in his words "veim ki bdvar mitzvah eyn lehisbayesh") since
he is involved in matters that are pikuach nefesh (presumably because he
was one of the most important poskim of the dor) it is pikuach nefesh that
people should respect him.  That may be a good reason for HaRav Yitzchok
Elchonon ZT'L but being that I (and I presume this is true for the
majority of the members of this list, no offense if this doesn't apply to 
you:-)) am not one of the poskei HaDor, I must do what is right even if
it is not the "Ruach HaZman" and even if people will look at m funny and
not respect me.  Fortuneatly, I have not found this to be the case most of
the time.  But people have definitely "looked at me funny" on a number of
occasions.
I feel bad that I missed most of our previous techeiles discussions,
because I have alot to say about the subject and I am sure that I also
have alot to learn.  But I was not able to resist the temptation to jump
in on this discussion and say a few words.
Shaul Weinreb

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


[ 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 ]