Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 076

Friday, December 11 1998

• Re: new rishonim
• Re: Rambam 3:10
• Re: Artificial insemination
• Re: artificial insemination
• Re: Rambam 3:10
• Re: Avodah V2 #74
• Paying for Torah
• Re: J. Eybeschuetz on the Shulchan Aruch
• Re: Artificial Insemination (more than you may want to know)
• Re: chilul Hashem - please don't misquote me!
• Re: Artificial Insemination (more than you may want to know)
• Re: Paying for Torah
• chanuka
• Mazal Tov
• Jewish Observer article
• Re: Shulchan Aruch
• Re: chanuka
• RSZA on AI
• Re: chanuka
• Re: chanuka

Joel Rich asks:

<<  
>Once a work has recieved widespread acceptance by all of K'lal Yisrael,
according >to many, it rises to the level of d'var mishna.  Sources contrary
to what has been >accepted, while they might be legitimate, can not change the
status quo 

>Eliyahu Teitz

Would you say this even if the new rishon offered an explanation of the
various gemora sources which reached a different psak but also explained some
outstanding issues raised by the prior psak(ie would we accept a different
psak based on logic but not based on "this is how I see it"?
>>

If outstanding issues means unresolved questions, yes, why not use a source
that explains a difficulty. It should be no worse than a present day logical
answer to an unresolveds question.

If it is an approach different to that which we have already accepted, then we
run into trickier territory.  One might ask, why wasn't this novel approach
addressed earlier.  Was it brought up and rejected for some reason.  I was
taught as a child that one of the reasons we have the shakla v'tarya in the
g'mara is to show us that different possibilities were considered and
rejected, so that someone not come up with a new approach that was never
discovered and seek to overturn the g'mara.

While I do not attribute divinity to any perosn, and therefore it is not
possible that ALL opinions were considered in the past, I think that we have
to go withthe system we have, the mesora we have, relying on Lo bashamayim
hee, and that whatever we have decided as halacha, HaShem follows, and will
judge us according to the system we have set up.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
There has been a discussion regarding accepting money in order to enable
one to sit and learn.  See The Rama  (who is regarded as a more
definitive practical halachik opinion more so than the Rambam) in Yoreh
Deah Hilchos Talmud Torah, 23 who brings this Rambam, but writes that
today the custom is to indeed take money.  See also the Shach on this.
>>

As I wrote earlier, I think Rambam objected to expectations of being paid, not
actually taking omney that is freely offered.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

YZ askes:

<<
However forgive my ignorance of the facts, is there a possibility of
collecting the Zera in the Rechem, and in that case would the Maaseh Habiloh
make it an act of Pru Urvu.
>>

Yes, zera can be inserted directly into a woman and it will flow to the
fallopian tubes. (practically, it is not done, as the success rate of
fertilization is higher in a test tube [ at least as far as I have read ] ).
However, since the man's eyver is not involved directly in this act, but
rather a syringe is, I don't know that a man's pushing a plunger is an act of
bi'ah.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
BTW a small Rayo that the child goes according to the one who gave birth is
from the Possuk who calls Dinoh the Daughter of Leah (34:1) (and likewise
Yosef as the son of Roche) even Though that according to some Medroshim and so
to R"E Hakalir that the Ubrim were exchanged.
>> 

A bigger r'aya is the halacha that a woman pregnant with twins who converts to
Judaism, the t'vilas mikva is a t'vila for the children as well, and they are
considered geyrim as well, and yet they are halachically siblings ( unlike
living siblings who convert ), showing a connection only by the fact that they
were born of the same woman.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

In v2n75, R' ED Teitz writes:
: If he felt that he should be supported by public charity, then I feel he would
: get NO reward whatsoever for his learning.

This is a more mechanistic and absolutist view of s'char va'onesh than I would
take.

First, I'd make the weaker claim that to the extent that his kavannah was that
he should be supported by public charity he'd lose reward for his learning.
I wouldn't phrase it as an all-or-nothing. Also, most of the time he was
learning, he had no thoughts beyond whatever the sugya was -- nothing about
parnassa one way or the other.

Second, what if post-misa he had charata for taking tzedakah funds to learn?
Couldn't he then reclaim the "credit" for learning?

Of course, my attitude flows from the model of s'char va'onesh I've posted in
the past: that mitzvos are the means by which one maintains spiritual
"health", and s'char and onesh are the consequences of being healthy or
unhelthy.

Therefore, one can heal or improve one aspect by learning, even as one harms
himself in another way by being on the dole to do so.

The same could be said of the Rambam's model. To him, "credit" is an
intellectual connection to HKBH. If someone is sitting and learning, and in
some moment in which he doesn't think about how he's getting parnasa he has an
epiphany about Hashem -- didn't he succeed in establishing that connection?

I would therefore conclude that the understanding of "natal chayyav min
ha'olam" (TT 3:10) that we've been assuming is incorrect.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6002 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 10-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

I did say in a previous post, that I did not want to go into the whole
issue of the shita of the Rambam regarding using Torah as a means of
supporting oneself.  However, HaRav YGB seems to be relentlessly raising
this issue in defense of his assertion that Chillul Hashem can outweigh
the performance of a mitzvah.  Regarding Rav YGB's example of the guy who
learned his whole life in Kollel Chazon Ish, you were accurate in your
assesment of my opinion that According to the Rambam he would not only not
receive credit for his learning but would actually get punished for it.
However, even the Rambam believes in the principle of Eilu VaEilu, and
when this person says that I was learning there because I was paskening
like those shitos that feel that this is the proper way to spend one's
life, because that is what my rabbeim taught me, he will duly recieve much
reward for his holy endeavors, with the blessings of the holy Rambam
himself.
It was always my understanding, that even Kollel proponents admit that the
Rambam strongly disagrees with their approach to life.  I remember
learning in the Mesivta of Long Beach (where I attended High School and a 
place with impeccable "proKollel" credentials) that
the Rambam's Shita was appropriate in general, but that B'Zman Hazeh
because of Eys Laasos we must study Torah in the manner promoted by HaRav
Ahron Kotler ZT'l.  I also remember hearing that some rishonim disagree
with the Rambam's shita ( being that I am currently working in the
hospital and I 
do not have access to my library, please excuse me for not giving
specific sources and quotes). Whether or not the Rambam would
agree with this assessment if he were alive today is something that we can
debate, but there is no question that if someone lived the
"Kollel Chazon Ish" lifestyle during the time of the Rambam,
that the Rambam himself would have strongly critcized it.
Incidentaly, I can mention here that my Chassidic ancestors, the Admorim
of Modzitz ZTvK'L strongly criticized one who uses Torah as a parnasah,
and in the way of many Polish Chassidic Rabbeim they encouraged their
chassidim to earn a parnasah in other ways.  As far as my humble intellect
can understand, I see no reason why I should change from this path in this
period of history (especially since the chassidic leaders of our day,
from whom I receive much spiritual guidance, still promote this shita).
However, I acknowledge that many gedolim disagree on
this point, and I therefore am willing to say that point that I began with
- that a lifelong Kollel talmid chochom, who pursued his path beemunah
shelaima based upon the teachings of his rabbeim, will most definitely
receive ample reward in the world to come.
Once again, this has no relevance to the Chillul Hashem issue.  The Rambam
never states anything that can even remotely be construed as to mean that
we should not do something that we were clearly commanded to do by HKB'H
Himself because of concerns of Chillul Hashem. As I stated before, this
seems to me to be absurd and self-contradictory.  Kiddush Shem Shamayim by
definition is done by
fulfilling the commandments of Hashem Yisbarach regardless of what we or
the rest of the world perceive as being right or wrong. Please
excuse me for the length of this post, I tried to be as brief as I could.
Shaul Weinreb

EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> RYGB poses the following scenario:
> <<
> A fellow, say, from Kollel Chazon Ish, who spent his entire life in Torah
> study while being supported by public funds and charity come up after one
> hundred and twenty years to Shomayim. According to the Rambam, how does
> the Beis Din shel Ma'alah judge this person?
> >>
> I think one question has to be asked of this scholar, and his answer will make
> all the difference in outcome.  What was his expectation of support while he
> was studying?  Where did he think his food would come from?
>
> If he felt that he should be supported by public charity, then I feel he would
> get NO reward whatsoever for his learning.  And I think this is Rambam's
> intent too, as he wrote:  "Kol hameysim al libo...v'lo ya'aseh m'lacha,
> v'yisparnes min hatzedaka".  Part of his condition of devotion to learning is
> that he will be on the public dole. Such a person gets no credit.

While it is nice to use this example for a theoretical discussion,  I think the
wrong impression of halacha l'maaseh is being created.

Rav Moshe Feinstein addresses the issue of accepting money from a Kollel ,
Rabbonim who accept a salary, teachers in yeshiva as well as roshei yeshiva .
Igros Moshe Y.D.II #116 page 190. He states that it of course permitted.  Rema
246:21. Shach (2)  who quotes the Kesef Mishna [perek III 10 of Talmud Torah at
the end] and even if you want to say that this is not the view of the Rambam - "
we have seen that  all chochmei Yisroel before and after [Rambam]  were accustomed
to take money from the Tzibor. And even if you want to argue that the halacha
follows the Rambam perhaps  there was an agreement of all the chochmei hadoros
because of Ais La'asos because otherwise Torah would be forgotten from Yisroel
c.v...". The Yam Shel Shlomo voices a similar view.
Rav Moshe concludes, "Therefore it is a simple and unequivocal din that has been
accepted in all generations whether from Din or takanas of Ais La'asos that it is
permitted to study, teach and be a Rav and posek  and be supported by payments or
salary and one should not refrain even as midas chassidus. AND I SAY THAT THOSE
WHO WISH TO BE FRUM AND FOLLOW THE RULING OF THE RAMBAM - THIS IS THE ADVICE OF
THE YETZER HARAH...

                                                      Daniel Eidensohn

David Glasner wrote:

> Yisrael Herczeg wrote:
> <<<
> Rav Yehonoson Eybeschuetz states his opinion on this matter in Urim
> VeTumim, Kitzur Takfo Kohen, p. 48, column 4. He says that the Shulchan
> Aruch
> with Hagahos HaRema is a work of such perfection that it could not have
> been the product of mere humans. The Beis Yosef and the Rema were inspired
> by
> a "ruach Hashem" and wrote a work which contains truths of which they
> themselves were not conscious. Any halachic opinion not included in it
> has had the door shut before it as far as halachah lemaaseh is concerned.
> >>>
> It occurs to me that this statement shows that an irrational approach to
> halachah that attributes its validity to nistar factors beyond the ken of
> critical analysis and discussion -- an approach  reflected in  other
> statements of R. Eybeschuetz as well -- may be (aside from its direct
> conflict with the principle lo ba-shamayim hi as applied by the gemara in
> BM 59) associated with or may give rise to deviations from the "true
> faith" that are no less grave than those that supposedly flow from a
> rational approach that subjects the origins of halachah to a critical
> analysis

I think this description of the role of ruach hakodesh as well  as Rav
Eybeshitz is inaccurate and too harsh. The concept of lo bashamayim is
thoroughly discussed in the literature [see Rav Reuven Margolis' introduction
to Shailas v'Tshuvos minShamayim.  This issue is especially related to the
fact that  many major poskim assert that they have divine assistance in their
rulings. the Raavad for example asserts that the halacha is like him since
there is ruach hakodesh in his beis hamedrash.

the Maharetz Chayes notes that we are not necessarily dealing with an
"irrational" psak. The assertions of "divine assistance" are typically
accompanied by rather well thought out and logical expositions. We see also
that poskim can accept the assertion of "divine assistance" and still
disagree as we find in the case of the Ravad and Shulchan Aruch.

Your statement regarding his "other statements" needs to be clarified and
justified. Tossing off an apparent slur regarding a major talmid chachom is
not acceptable. If you in fact did not mean to slander him - it would be
appreciated if you say so.

Gershom Scholem says "Eybeschuetz was considered not only one of the greatest
preachers of his time but also one of the giants of the talmud, acclaimed for
his acumen and particularly incisive intellect. Thirty of his works in the
fields of halacha have been published....To the present day they are regarded
as classics by students of the Talmud. ..
"Opinions are still divided on the assessment of this striking
personality...The great bitterness surrounding the controversies on the
question of his secret relationship with the Shabbateans stems precisely from
his being recognized as a true master of the Torah. It was hard to believe
that a man who had himself signed a cherem against the Shabbateans could have
secretly held their beliefs....Scholarly historical research has advanced 3
views 1)he was never a Shabbatean 2) that he was in his youth but turned his
back on the sect around the time of the cherem 3) he was crypto-Shabbatean
from the time he studied in Prague till the end of his days [Scholem's view].

Please clarify your remarks.

                                                       Daniel Eidensohn

I believe the flip side of this is that RSZA in Minchas Shlomo dismisses
the halachic relevance of Ben sira's conception and tends to regard the
product of artificial insemination with a Jew & an Eishes Ish as a Mamzer.
But did not check this today!

On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

> Yes.  But as RYGB has recently mentioned, we don't learn halakha from
> midrash.  So most posekim cite the case of the giyoret pregnat with
> twins in Yevamot 97b, based on the concept of ger she nitgayer ke-nolad
> dami.

YGB

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

On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> In short - YES, chilul Hashem is relative, YES, chilul Hashem can
> compound other issurim, - NO, none of this is relevant to the question
> of whether chilul Hashem limits the manner or obligation of mitzvah
> peformance.  Other sources? 
> 

No need. I am not convinced by your interpretation of the Rambam in TT
(to be honest, I do not understand it. I *do* understand RSW and REDT's
and I am happy we have clarified that we disagree on pshat in the Rambam,
leading to the nafka mina of our further disagreements, We can agree, at
this point to disagree. As to the limitation on Odom Chashuv - we are all
Odom Chashuv vis a vis our brethren who expect Orthodox Jews to live on a
higher plateau of conduct. In my opinion, this needs no proofs.

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 12/10/98 11:05:51 AM EST, clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

>  After sending my initial post, I felt that, in the interest of accuracy
>  and precision, I should present a more detailed summary of the views
>  regarding the kiyyum of piryah ve-rivyah using modern reproductive
>  technology.

Thanks so much for the Chochmo and Mlocho put into your post.

My question is in the AIH procedure, it should seem that combined with the
GIFT procedure when taken after Bioh, that one should fulfill Pru Urvu, as
there was a Gmar Bioh which produced Zera the Tachbuloh that it should become
a child should be no Nafkoh Minoh, (how would Tosfos learn in the case of an
Akoroh when obviously Tosfos is basing it on Ein Isho Misaberes Eloh Bigmar
Bioh).

>  Yes.  But as RYGB has recently mentioned, we don't learn halakha from
>  midrash.

I just wanted to make it relevant to the current Torah portions.

>  >My question is that the Rambam writes that the problem with B"A is not
just
>  >the etzem Maaseh Habi'iloh but that Zera Kodesh turns into Zera Nochri, 
> that
>  >should be irrelevant to whether there is Koreis on the Maaseh Habeeloh.
>  
>  A good question.  Could you tell me again where Rambam says this?  I
>  could not find it in Issurei Bi'ah 21.

Sorry for interposing the number,  it is 12:13

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

Just to add one point to Rabbi Eidensohns well stated post--the Chofetz
Chaim in the biur halacha siman 231 clearly states that the Rambam would
agree to kollel byman hazeh, m'ikur hadin (eyen Sham), so lets leave this
to
a debate of what is considered Chillul Hashem, the modern concept of
kollel is beyond question, as the gedolim have spoken and paskened heter
whether because of eis laasos or ikur hadin.
Elie Ginsparg

On Thu, 10 Dec 1998, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

> EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > RYGB poses the following scenario:
> > <<
> > A fellow, say, from Kollel Chazon Ish, who spent his entire life in Torah
> > study while being supported by public funds and charity come up after one
> > hundred and twenty years to Shomayim. According to the Rambam, how does
> > the Beis Din shel Ma'alah judge this person?
> > >>
> > I think one question has to be asked of this scholar, and his answer will make
> > all the difference in outcome.  What was his expectation of support while he
> > was studying?  Where did he think his food would come from?
> >
> > If he felt that he should be supported by public charity, then I feel he would
> > get NO reward whatsoever for his learning.  And I think this is Rambam's
> > intent too, as he wrote:  "Kol hameysim al libo...v'lo ya'aseh m'lacha,
> > v'yisparnes min hatzedaka".  Part of his condition of devotion to learning is
> > that he will be on the public dole. Such a person gets no credit.
> 
> While it is nice to use this example for a theoretical discussion,  I think the
> wrong impression of halacha l'maaseh is being created.
> 
> Rav Moshe Feinstein addresses the issue of accepting money from a Kollel ,
> Rabbonim who accept a salary, teachers in yeshiva as well as roshei yeshiva .
> Igros Moshe Y.D.II #116 page 190. He states that it of course permitted.  Rema
> 246:21. Shach (2)  who quotes the Kesef Mishna [perek III 10 of Talmud Torah at
> the end] and even if you want to say that this is not the view of the Rambam - "
> we have seen that  all chochmei Yisroel before and after [Rambam]  were accustomed
> to take money from the Tzibor. And even if you want to argue that the halacha
> follows the Rambam perhaps  there was an agreement of all the chochmei hadoros
> because of Ais La'asos because otherwise Torah would be forgotten from Yisroel
> c.v...". The Yam Shel Shlomo voices a similar view.
> Rav Moshe concludes, "Therefore it is a simple and unequivocal din that has been
> accepted in all generations whether from Din or takanas of Ais La'asos that it is
> permitted to study, teach and be a Rav and posek  and be supported by payments or
> salary and one should not refrain even as midas chassidus. AND I SAY THAT THOSE
> WHO WISH TO BE FRUM AND FOLLOW THE RULING OF THE RAMBAM - THIS IS THE ADVICE OF
> THE YETZER HARAH...
> 
>                                                       Daniel Eidensohn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

i ask this shaylah every year, and i hear differnet answers.

problem-- relatives want to make a party at dinner time.
question---where and when to light?

options--  1] at home before coming.  upside-- bizman, bamakom
downside--delays party; unsafe leaving candles (tempting one to lite in a
safer part of the house or in a water-lined tray

2] at home, after the party.   upside--safe, right place  downside--wrong
time, after eating

3] at the party    upsiide-doesn't delay the party, lite before eating
downside--not at home, not ner ish ubeito

4]be yotze with the hosts lighting  obvious upside   downside--but you're
still home that evening, so u can't do that

I've been always told that option 1] is the acceptable answer.

any opinions??        shabat shalom

>Anyway, the further reason for my message is to let everybody know, 
>if it wasn't already obvious, that I am engaged to Robert Sassoon, of
>London. Mazel Tov
	Mazel Tov.  What an interesting way to announce.  I hope you don't
actually try to pull this travelogue off!

Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

>The November issue contains a translation of a Hebrew article written 
>by an elderly mehanekh in Israel who recounts two incidents in his life 
>in which he mistreated others and the apparent punishment he received.  
>The story is a bracing one and represents powerful musar lesson.  The
>translator (an acquaintance of my friend) vouches for the accuracy of
>the piece.
	What is your opinion of the story?   I'm not sure how accurate the
translation was as far as the emphasis goes.  I can understand the
injustice of attacking the boy for improper dress without inquiring,  but
why did the author have to feel bad for not giving private lessons.  He
didn't discriminate;  he gave to nobody,  and for good reason,  because
he wanted time to learn.  What should he have done differently,  without
benefit of hindsight?

Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Speaking as someone who is not a Talmid Chacham but who has learned his
share of Mishna Brura and covered other simanim in Shulchan Aruch with
Taz and/or Shach etc.,  I cannot understand where The Tumim, and others
who wax poetic about how the Sh"A is the final arbiter of Halacha,are
coming from.  There  k'mat isn't a seif in all of Shulchan Aruch that
doesn't have  the Shach, Taz, Magen Avraham or another acharon disputing
at least part of the Sh"A (and Rama) or limiting its scope.  (For all
those "High-level" people out there, sorry but I won't quote sources. 
Just open any page of the M"B at random and you should see what I mean.) 

There is a similar quote attributed to the Rama, (quoted in the intro. to
Yechave Da'at) that says that arguing with the Beis Yosef  is like
arguing with the Shechina.  This is the Rama.  !?!?!  The only way I can
understand him (or the Tumim) is in the rhetorical, hyperbolic sense I
understand many mechabrei seforim.   Some may write a big "Chas
v'Sholom!", but how else can you understand such a statement from the one
man in all of Jewish History who personifies arguing with the Mecahber? 
BTW the intro to the Yechave Da'at is a good place to see that even many
Sephardi Poskim only felt obligated to follow the "Maran" l'chumra, a
position which R'Ovadia disputes.  

Raffy  
___________________________________________________________________
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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Newman,Saul Z wrote:
> 
> i ask this shaylah every year, and i hear differnet answers.
> 
> problem-- relatives want to make a party at dinner time.
> question---where and when to light?
> 

Another wrinkle would be if the party is far enough away so that you
have to leave before zman hadlakah to make it in any decent time...

I have been looking at this recently and so far it seems to me that the
M"B paskens that if you are not in the same city that you live in, you
should light where you are (at the party) or at least be mishtatef with
the ba'al habayis.  (i'll try to provide a ma'ar hamakom tomorrow -
unfortunately I am still at the office...)

I also found a teshuva from R' Moshe (I believe Yoreh Deah 3, 13, seif
4)  that seems to say that there are 2 considerations.  1 - your
location during zman hadlakah, 2 - chashad from others that you didn't
light.  I understood from the short teshuvah that if you are away for
the evening, even if you will be coming back that night, as long as
nobody will be choshed that you were home and didn't light (for example,
everyone knows that you went to your parents for the evening) you do not
have to light when you come home as the chiyuv is only chal in your
house.  Now, I don't know if that means that you don't even have to
light in the other person's house or that you should light there or be
mishtatef there...  BTW if there is chashad - he suggests that you
return early enough and light at home so that some people will see that
you lit which takes care of the chashad.

I also heard mipi HaShmua that Rav Yonason Saks (of Passaic)  told a
member of his kehilla who was going to be away the whole day until late
to light when he got home late at night.

Take care,

Joel 


-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com	
W-212-762-2386

My mistake. It seems the teshuva is not in the Minchas Shlomo but is in
Noam vol. 1 (1958). RSZA there says that the product of AI between a Jew
who is not her husband and an Eishes Ish is a Safek Mamzer.

YGB

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

On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Joel Margolies wrote:

> I also heard mipi HaShmua that Rav Yonason Saks (of Passaic)  told a
> member of his kehilla who was going to be away the whole day until late
> to light when he got home late at night. 

You arre not addressing the bracha issue. To the best of my recollection,
a person who lights so late at night that no one will see the candles
beside himself does not make a brocho, nor does one who lights in a house
where he is only eating and not sleeping. The "birchas ha'ro'eh" of
"She'asah Nissim," however, may have different parameters.

YGB

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

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
.. To the best of my recollection,
> a person who lights so late at night that no one will see the candles
> beside himself does not make a brocho, nor does one who lights in a house
> where he is only eating and not sleeping. 

I believe that is correct if you are the only one in the house - however
I also believe that the main pirsumai nisah bizman hazeh is b'veiso so
if you have a family and there are others up with you - there should be
no problem with the bracha.  Also, I want to reiterate that I think the
M"B does say that someone can light outside his home if he is loacted in
another city during zman hadlakah.

Take care,

Joel

-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com	
W-212-762-2386

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


[ 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 ]