Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 152

Wednesday, February 3 1999

• Calling someone Mamzer
• Get
• Re: Tfila b'tzibbur
• Re: Just what is Torah Umada?
• Re: Jewish Center
• Re: Avodah V2 #149-The Rov and Kriyas HaTorah
• Re: Rav Aharon Soloveichik
• missing data
• Apology! And The Best of Western Culture
• Re: TK"D, GRA and Rishonim, non-halachic statements
• Re: TK"D
• T'mimus and name calling
• Hair Covering and Textualism
• Eruv
• The Rav and B'kius
• Rav and tefillah b'tzibbur
• Re: Eruv
• Re: TK"D, GRA and Rishonim, non-halachic statements
• Re: Hatzolah and Shmiras Shabbos
• [none]

In the spirit of inyanei d'yoma, I refer you to the Sde Chemed mareches
Chirufin, which has a section (ois daled) begining "hakoreh l'chavero
mamzer ..".  Basically, he brings that you get forty lashes for this,
and if you call somebody a mamzer ben mamzer, you get 80 - 40 for the
person and 40 for the father (Ri Migash).  The previous section (ois
gimel) discusses whether if you say somebody is "like a mamzer" that is
equivalent to calling them a mamzer.  Back to daled,there is a bit of a
discussion whether if Reuven calls Shimon a mamzer, and Shimon calls
Reuven one back, whether Shimon is patur, but it would seem that they
both get malkos.

The whole section is absolutely fascinating.  Basically it goes through
all sorts of things that people could call other people (eg malach
hamaves, goy, rasha, tamei s'fataim, hediot), and interprets what they
mean, and hence whether the caller can be hauled before beis din (ie
whether the words are genuinely derogatory, or can be intepreted in a
manner to not be derogatory).

Regards

Chana

In message , Zvi Weiss <weissz@IDT.NET> writes
>===> If a man is a bigamist, he is violating an issur d'rabbannan 

Is this in fact all he is violating?  I wondered because divorcing
b'shtar is one of the mitzvos aseh listed by the Rambam (222). Obviously
it is not a positive commandment for a man to divorce his wife
(otherwise nobody would be married in the frum community).  And as it is
clear from the discription, both there and in hilchos gitten, the ikar
of the mitzvah is to divorce by shtar. The obvious question then
becomes, what other kind of "divorce" is possible (ie how do you
divorce, not by shtar)? The Rambam clarifies this in hilchos malachim
perek 9 halacha 8 by stating that, in relation to goyim, a woman is
divorced when her husband sends her out from his house, or she leaves
his rishus and goes her own way.

So I wondered whether it would be accurate to say that if a woman is
"gentilely divorced" or it becomes incumbant on the couple to be
divorced (eg adultery and the other circumstances listed in the various
Mishnayos) would it be accurate to say that the mitzvas aseh of
divorcing b'shtar is chal on him at that time?  

If this were right then the Rambam's famous pronunciation that a beis
din can beat a husband until he gives the get would only be a subset of
the general principle that while there are a fixed numbers of lashes
which can be given to somebody who violates a lo ta'aseh, there is no
limit on the number of lashes beis din can impose on somebody who
refuses to carry out a mitzvas aseh (if they continue to refuse).

The fact that a get must be given lishma does not seem to me to
contradict this, there are various mitzvos - eg a korban chattas, that
have to be done lishma, and yet there is still a chiyuv to bring the
korban in circumstances where one becomes chayav to do so.

Again, if this were right, then the takana of Rabbanu Gershom that a
woman has to accept the get for it to be given would be another example
(eg not blowing shofar on Rosh HaShana that falls on shabbas) where the
Chachamim prohibited a mitzvas aseh to preserve some greater matter (eg
shabbas).

>- --Zvi

Regards

Chana


-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

In a message dated 2/3/99 3:53:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu writes:

<< 
 In Rav Henkin's works, he states explicitly that tefilla is hovat hatzibbur,
so
 that  someone who has a legitimate reason, for not being able to go to shul
at
 the regular time  has no chiyuv to gather a minyan to daven  b'tzibbur.  The
 question is then what are legitimate reasons.
 
 With regard to kriat hatora, I remember reading that the Griz, (Rav
 Soloveichik's uncle), held that kriat hatora is hovat gavra rather than hovat
 hatzibbur, so that if he came late to shul and missed  just the beginning of
 laning, he would seek another shul to hear all of kria.  I don't know how Rav
 Soloveichik held himself.
 
 Meir Shinnar
  >>
Dear Meir,
Not to reopen a previous thread but I think we need to bear in mind that
whether there is a chiyuv or not, there is also the element of tfilat hatzibur
tamid nishmaat. I guess the most difficult decisions in life are choosing
between alternative 'goods'

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

In a message dated 2/3/99 12:35:31 PM Eastern Standard Time,
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< 
 1) Model #1  Give the student A yeshivish learning in the morning and a real 
 college education in the afternoon, and after 4 years let him synthesize.
This 
 allowed for the liberal arts college to be realitvely free academecially
(even 
 teach apikorsus, etc.)  The Yeshiva side allowed for many Agudist Roshei
Yeshiva
 who gave a more Chareidi viewpoint.
 
 2) Model #2.  Have the instructors themselves teach, demonstrate, and
practice 
 synthesis.
 
 To the best of my knowledge, #2 has never been the dominant model at YU, just
 perhaps idealized.  The more compartmentalized Model #1 has largely prevaled.
  >>
Dear Richard,
I agree with your analysis of the current state being 2) but believe the ideal
state is 1)

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Having already apologized for the comments I made about the Jewish Center, and
having already revised my last post to omit a certain word that I used in
reference to the person who publically disgraced and embarrassed another
person for walking in during R' Shachters speech. I feel I  want to make 2
final points on the matter. Firstly, I am a bit perplexed as to why the
majority of the response that I recieved from my posts were in defense of this
practice of humiliating people. One person informed me that this method of
removing people from shul dates back to the 1920's. I'm not sure what that
means, does that make it OK for the so called "gabbai" to publically embarass
another person? I find it strange that so many people would come to the
defense of such a practice, while not one person commented how what they do is
wrong. Secondly, I have to wonder if I would be criticized in the same manner
had my comments been directed to a gabbai of an Agudas Yisroel Shul or another
"black hat" institution. I'm not saying that I wouldn't, Im just wondering out
loud.
 Just for the record (b/c someone emailed me saying that the person (who
happened to be my wife) was wrong for walking in during the speech). There are
no signs saying not to come in, the doors were not locked (like some shuls
do), and the person was returning from the bathroom. She had only been gone a
few minutes when she was publically humiliated, and PHYSICALLY dragged by the
arm, out of the shul.
 Again, I realize that it may not have been proper to attack the entire shul,
just b/c of the actions of a Yuchid who acts on behalf of the shul. I want to
aplogize if I  offended anyone, and reiterate that the point of my original
post was not directed at the shul, but rather at a person who I had seen
coming out of the shul who said that Hashem broke the Covenant with Klal
Yisroel.
 Thank you
 
 Daniel Lefton
 New York City, NY >>

Between 1979-1983, I lained a few times for a minyan specially gathered so
that the Rov could hear Kriyas HaTorah. Noone was ever asked if they had heard
laining already. This didn't happen often since he came in on Tuesday mornings
and left on Thursday afternoon. There were some times he came in on Mondays
and Rosh Chodesh, Chanuka etc.  The first time I lained I was so nervous, I
stood on the right side of the bima through the levi aliya  until someone
realized and told me to switch to the left side. 

Lewis S. Wienerkur

Robert Werman wrote:
> 
> We were asked to make mishebeyrachs for Rav Aharon
> Soloveichik, Shalit"a [Aharon ben Pesia, haLevi].
> 
> It would be nice if we had a followup on his
> status, y'zche l'hayim aruchim.
> 
> __Bob Werman
> Jerusalem

I just came back from a visit to Rav Aaron.  He was admitted to the 
hospital with pneumonia.  He has been given antibiotics and is in 
the proccess of recovering. However he has been in the cardiac care unit 
because of an irregular heartbeat.  Doctors are not sure of the cause.  
It may be from medication which has since been adjusted.  I spoke with 
him.  He is in relatively good spirits and is anxious to go home. His 
Rebbitzen has been with him since yesterday, (she was also sick at home 
with fever before that) and his grandson was with him over last 
shabbos.  Rebbitzen Soloveichik told me that the doctors don't think he 
will be home before shabbos. Nobody seems worried that this is anything 
too serious. 

Any further developments that I become aware of I will post on this 
list.

HM
HM

I've decided on the question I'm going to discuss in my next (Parshas
Mishpatim) parsha shiur.  I'd like to receive some comments from the
list.
  We all know that a classical apologetic argument (against the
Karaites) in favor of oral law is that the written law in the Chumash
(e.g. the civil law codified in parshas Mishpatim) is insufficiently
detailed.  We also all know that the oral law's codification of civil
law is exhaustively detailed.  That explains why we need oral law.
  But why do we need written law? Couldn't we get the same legal system
with only oral law? What benefit do we get from the strictly halachic
parts of the Chumash?

Any suggestions?

David Riceman

Frenkel, Garry J. wrote:

 
> I seem to have hit one of Harry's hot buttons, and while I realize that this
> list is about issues not personalities, since the personality in question is
> me, I feel the need to respond.  I would have responded to Harry directly
> but perhaps others may have similarly understood my comments.
> 
> As I aplogized in a follow-up note, my original posting was a very
> incomplete draft that I accidentally sent out.  Happily my 5 years in the YU
> system (4 years in MTA and 1 year in YC) were from 66 - 71, and Boruch
> Hashem, even without Harry's gentle exhortations to repent I managed to find
> my way back to the path of Torah and the yoke of heaven.  Although it took
> over a year for me to be able to drive past YU without having strong
> feelings of anger and revulsion, as I have grown older I have come to
> realize that the sixties were a difficult time for YU and that things have
> greatly improved there over time.
> 
> Nevertheless, I still blame YU, the YU rabbinical products that were my
> teachers, and the lukewarm approach to Yiddishkeit that was presented to me
> and my classmates as the prime factor in my past disillusionment with
> Yiddiskeit. It is my judgement that Torah U'mada has a very strong tendency
> to sanctify the secular and diminish the sanctity of the holy, and this is
> what I expeienced at YU.  If this leaves me with no dignity in anyone's eyes
> that's their problem.
> 
> It was not my goal to bash YU or Torah U'mada per se.  As I said, in my
> opinion the problem is not secular knowledge but secular culture.  I believe
> that a healthier model of the synthesis of Torah and secular knowledge it
> the one represented by the Twerski brothers, sons of the Milwaukee Rebbe
> Z'L.  As Rabbis, Doctors, Lawyers or Accountants they were, and yibadel bein
> chaim l'chaim are, contemporary thinkers and modern men whose primary focus
> is their growth as Jews and who battle mightily against any compromise of
> their values.
> 
> It is not only the proponents of Torah U'mada who have adopted some the
> values of our host culture.  But the less one views those values as
> negative, and the more enamored one is of that culture the more susceptible
> they are to its negative influence.
> 
> Gad Frenkel

I would like to make a public apology to Mr. Frenkel. Indeed one of my 
hot buttons were pushed. As I menbtioned to another poster, YU gets 
bashed enough.  We really shouldn't have to "take it" from those who 
have left the fold and blame it on one factor, (in this case, YU)  when 
there are usually many factors to blame.  What I, of course, didn't know 
was that Mr. Frenkel did indeed return to the fold long before my 
"gentle" admonishments. Again, my sincere apology. 

But I still take issue with Mr. Frenkel's positions as outlined above.  
As Eli Clark pointed out (and I have pointed out many times in the past 
in one form or another), there is much that is positve western culture. 
We should never "throw out the baby with the bath water".  I 
believe it is Meseches Avos that talks about Rebbe Meir's learning from 
"Acher", the Tanna turned apostate, Alisha ben Avuyah. Indeed, R. Meir 
is reffered to many times in Shas as Acherim because of that 
Rebbe/Talmid relationship. When asked why he did it, R. Meir responded 
"Tocho Ochel, VeKlipaso Zorek". I think this is a valuable lesson for us 
today.  We should never reject anything in it's totality if there is 
merit in any part of it. What we are required to do is extract the 
positive, and reject the negative.  We need only to have the 
intelligence and education and synthesis of the two, (Chachma, bina, 
VeDaas , if you will) to know how to define what the positive and 
negative is.

HM

>>>Te Gemara and Tosafos, read k'peshutan, say that witnesses are only bonded
if they testify toch k'dei dibbur. This seems difficult, based on reasonable
time lapses - and
gaps within a witness's own statements.<<<

Why do you assume there were time lapses - when a normal person speaks they
don't pause T"KD between sentenses, no?  CAre to provide more detail on how
you reached other conclusions?

>>>The rishonim, see ritva ,ask why it specifically includes Eruv Tavshilin
and gives an answer eiyen sham. What interests me more is that the gra
can maintain that A"T was misread when rishonim understood it to be Eruv
tavshilim. <<<

I don't think that kashe should bother you any  more then other places where
teh GR"A doesn't learn like Rishonim.  The GR"A held (I beleive R' Chaim
M'Volozhim writes this) that his learning was on the level of the Rishonim so
he could be choleik.

>>>These sweeping evaluations of life phenomena are more difficult for me to
swallow than halachic judgments. <<<

While not applicable to all the cases you cite, bear in mind (1) the gemera is
addressing rov people, which might not hold true for every single yachid -
like yourself (2) the gemara may be addressing particular circumstances or
narrow cases and are not meant as broad sweeping generalizations; as a rule,
bear the context of the statement in mind.  

-Chaim

On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> Why do you assume there were time lapses - when a normal person speaks
> they don't pause T"KD between sentenses, no?  CAre to provide more

I believe that many people stop more than TKD between sentences. I also
believe the dayanim need not begin their questions TKD of the eid's
previous answer, and that he need not answer TKD of theirs, and,
nevertheless, his whole testimony is one unit.

> detail on how you reached other conclusions? 
> 

Sevara yeshara. (You may choose to debate this :-) ).

YGB

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

I have a philosophical dilemma I shared with one list member already.

Torah study is supposed to lead one to t'mimus and d'veikus. No?

Too much of what's been going on on this list does not evidence high levels of
either. Even in comparison to other email lists, where the typical reader is
far less observant and learned. Think about it, as a population we represent
where thinking O is going.

Does this imply ch"v that Torah umitzvos are /not/ media for reaching our
goals as people? We can't take refuge in the idea that we're just doing
Yahadus wrong, because "mitoch shelo lishmah, bah lishmah" -- which according
to everyone but the Rambam (and maybe the Gaon) means that if we're keeping
the letter of the law we should be getting closer to lishmah, and thereby
up the ramp in t'mimus and d'veikus anyway.

So what's going wrong?

-mi

PS: Why the Rambam and maybe the Gaon? Because the Rambam defines MSLBL as
being about having many opportunities is to do one mitzvah lishmah, and have
an epiphany. And the Gaon sees "lo lishmah" as requiring some form of kavanah,
at least kavanah to reach lishmah.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6080 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 3-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Hair covering by married women faired poorly both before the shift to
textualism and after. Under the memetic view of halachah, women weren't
covering their hair despite the clear texts. Now, hair is more covered, but
a sheitl -- which satisfies the letter without the point of the issur -- is
considered a preferable hair covering. More attention is placed on the
amount of hair covered, a measurable technical issue, than the ervah-lessness
of the covering, so that amongst Ashkenazim, a sheitl is often considered
"better" than a cloth covering.

That said, there was a strong textual stream in 19th cent Europe as well.
I don't fully agree with R' Dr. Soloveitchik's thesis. The difference is that
the texts now focussed upon are legal texts. The 19th century CE saw people
leave mimeticism for new O movements based on hashkafic grounds. Chumros arose
because they fit new views of what the tachlis is, and not merely because
"we must be chosheid for the shitah of R' XYZ".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6080 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 3-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

>Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 05:15:36 -0600 (CST)
>From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" 
><sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
>Subject: Eruv Tavshilin
>
>We were bothered in yesterday's DY as to why Chazal chose "Eruv 
>Tavshilin" out of thin air to express that A"A kept even d'rabbanan's.
This 
>morning, via the Or HaYashar, then via the CS YD 73, I discovered that
the 
>Ba'alei Tos. hold that "Eruvei Tavshilin" here means not mixing dishes -
not serving the milk and meat together to the visitors!
>
>Any other pshatim?
		From "Insights to the Daf Yomi,  by Rabbi Mordechai Kornfeld of Kollel
Iyun Hadaf in Har Nof (my apologies for not successfully clipping the
header and footer;  this will have to serve as acknowledgement):

3) AVRAHAM AVINU OBSERVED ALL OF THE MITZVOS 
QUESTION: The Gemara says that Avraham Avinu observed all of the Mitzvos
of the Torah, even though the Torah had not yet been given. To emphasize
the point, the Gemara says that he even observed the rabbinical enactment
of Eruv Tavshilin. Why does the Gemara choose to emphasize Eruv Tavshilin
of all Mitzvos? (TOSFOS YESHANIM)

ANSWERS:
(a) The RITVA explains that Eruv Tavshilin differs from other rabbinical 
enactments insofar as that it is not a matter of a prohibition (that is,
it was not enacted in order to prevent a similar act, which is an Isur 
d'Oraisa, from occurring). An Eruv Tavshilin was an enactment which the 
Rabanan made in order to enhance a person's Shabbos enjoyment by
encouraging him to put away some food for Shabbos and not to eat
everything on Yom Tov (Beitzah 15b). The Gemara, therefore, is teaching
that Avraham Avinu was careful to observe even this type of enactment.

The SEFER YUCHASIN (Erech "Avraham Avinu") explains that Eruv Tavshilin
was instituted in order to fulfill "Zachor Es Yom ha'Shabbos," "remember
the Shabbos; do not forget that Shabbos is coming" by eating all of his
good food on Yom Tov, which is Erev Shabbos (Beitzah 15b). In a similar
manner, Avraham "reminded" the people of the world that which they had
previously forgotten, that the world has a Creator (who created the world
in six days and rested on Shabbos).

The GEVURAS ARI adds further insight to why Eruv Tavshilin exemplifies 
Avraham's observation of Mitzvos. He explains that according to one
opinion in the Gemara (Pesachim 46b), one is permitted to cook on Yom Tov
for Shabbos with an Eruv Tavshilin only because of the principle of
"Ho'il." When one cooks on Yom Tov for Shabbos, it is permitted only
because he is really cooking on Yom Tov for Yom Tov, since perhaps a
guest will come to eat the extra food on Yom Tov. However, the allowance
of "Ho'il" to permit one to cook on Yom Tov on the assumption that he is
cooking for guests who might come on Yom Tov only applies to when those
guests are Jewish. One is not allowed to prepare food for a non-Jewish
guest on Yom Tov (even if the non-Jew is going to eat it on Yom Tov). In
the times of Avraham Avinu, there were no other Jews and therefore
Avraham could not rely on the principle of "Ho'il" to permit cooking on
Yom Tov for a possible guest who might come and eat it on Yom Tov,
because even if a guest came, he would not be Jewish and one is not
permitted to prepare food for a non-Jew on Yom Tov! We might have thought
that if Avraham made an Eruv Tavshilin, then he was not keeping the
Mitzvah. Therefore, the Gemara teaches us that he was indeed fulfilling
the Mitzvah of Eruv Tavshilin. How? It must be that the Gemara is of the
opinion that Shabbos and Yom Tov are one Kedushah, and the Torah permits
cooking on Yom Tov for Shabbos (as one opinion in Pesachim holds), and
therefore he did not have to rely on the principle of "Ho'il."

(b) The Girsa in the MIDRASH (Bereishis Rabah 64:6) is that Avraham Avinu
observed all of the Mitzvos, even Eruvei *Chatzeros*. The SEFER YUCHASIN 
(Erech "Avraham Avinu") explains that Eruvei Chatzeros was instituted to 
prevent people from taking what is in a Reshus ha'Yachid (literally, the 
land of a single party) and bringing it into a Reshus ha'Rabim
(literally, the public domain), on Shabbos. In a similar manner, Avraham
taught the people of the world not to attribute the world and its
contents to
multiple entities, but to properly attribute it to Hashem, Who is One.

(c) The Girsa of the RASHBA (Teshuvos 1:94) is that Avraham observed even
Eruvei *Techumin*. The VILNA GA'ON (Kol Eliyahu, #26) explains that this
is the most accurate Girsa, because it is implied in the verse which
says, 
"Ekev Asher Shama..." (Bereishis 26:5), implying that wwith his Ekev, his
heels, Avraham observed the Mitzvos and did not walk farther than
permitted.

According to this Girsa, too, the Gemara is perhaps hinting at the fact
that Avraham taught people that Hashem does not simply remain in His
heavens without taking note of what happens on earth. Rather, Hashem
supervises both this world and the heavens, the two "Techumim" of heaven
and earth are combined under the rule of Hashem. (M. Kornfeld)

___________________________________________________________________
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]

Elie Ginsparg suggested that the Rav's focus on b'iyun, perhaps even
exclusively b'iyun, is only after a groundwork is laid.

The Rambam holds that sh'lish bimikrah and sh'lish bimishnah are only until
a firm groundwork is laid. And after that, one should focus on gemara --
lehavin davar mitoch davar. As others have already pointed out, the Rambam's
definition of gemara is only bi'iyun.
 
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6080 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 3-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Chaim Brown wrote that it's possible tefillah betzibbur is "only" a
minhag tovah.

First, I heard in the name of R' Mosheh (I don't know whether that's R' Mosheh
Feinstein or Rav Mosheh Says <grin>) that tephillah biyachid is only a
b'dieved kiyum, and the ikkar kiyum of tephillah is only betzibur.

R' Chaim Soloveitchik held that there are two dinim in minyan: tephillah
betzibur, praying in a community; and tephillas hatzibur, the prayer of
the community. The Rav followed R' Chaim's minhag of standing with
feet together for chazaras haShatz, as the repetition is the fulfillment
of this second halachah.

While one could argue about what tzibbur adds to tephillah WRT the first din
(hiddur vs lichat-chilah), without a minyan there is certainly no fulfilment
of tephillas hatzibur.

Since the Rav acted in accordance with belief that both dinim existed, I
don't understand how he ever could have felt that kavanah is a more
important criterion than tzibbur.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6080 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 3-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In a message dated 2/3/99 9:53:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

<<  One is not allowed to prepare food for a non-Jewish
 guest on Yom Tov (even if the non-Jew is going to eat it on Yom Tov). In
 the times of Avraham Avinu, there were no other Jews and therefore
 Avraham could not rely on the principle of "Ho'il" to permit cooking on
 Yom Tov for a possible guest who might come and eat it on Yom Tov,
 because even if a guest came, he would not be Jewish and one is not
 permitted to prepare food for a non-Jew on Yom Tov! We might have thought
 that if Avraham made an Eruv Tavshilin, then he was not keeping the
 Mitzvah. Therefore, the Gemara teaches us that he was indeed fulfilling
 the Mitzvah of Eruv Tavshilin. How? It must be that the Gemara is of the
 opinion that Shabbos and Yom Tov are one Kedushah, and the Torah permits
 cooking on Yom Tov for Shabbos (as one opinion in Pesachim holds), and
 therefore he did not have to rely on the principle of "Ho'il." >>

Assumedly there were others at some point(hanefesh asher asu b'charan). A
friend told me in the name of the Satmer  Rebbe   that maybe  these
individuals would be mgayer and its not two hoeils since anyone who came in
close contact with avraham would be mgayer.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
> >>>The rishonim, see ritva ,ask why it specifically includes Eruv Tavshilin
> and gives an answer eiyen sham. What interests me more is that the gra
> can maintain that A"T was misread when rishonim understood it to be Eruv
> tavshilim. <<<
> 
> I don't think that kashe should bother you any  more then other places where
> teh GR"A doesn't learn like Rishonim.  The GR"A held (I beleive R' Chaim
> M'Volozhim writes this) that his learning was on the level of the Rishonim so
> he could be choleik.
It only bothers me more because its a dispute about what was in a text.
Granted the gra can argue svara or pshat in gemara over a rishon, I know
that, but that he would definitively say that his text was more accurate
then theirs--maybe their hand written text actually said Eruv Tavshilim
instead of A't which could be misunderstood. If the gra knew that the
rishonims text said A't and he argued on their interpretation I'd agree
with you that it is no different , but how did the gra know that the
rishonim didn't have a more accurate text?
Elie Ginsparg

I recently saw a Hatzolah member carrying his Walkie Talkie in Central Park on
Shabbos (where there is no kosher eruv, as far as I know). Is this something
that is permitted. I understand that it is a matter of pikuach nefesh for
these people to have the walkie talkies on them at all times, but does that
extend to going for liesure walks in areas that do not have an eruv. I was
wondering if anyone knows the din in these cases. I think I recall someone
once telling me that hatzolah members should not even touch the WTs on Shabbos
unless it is absolutly necc.. I assume it is ok to carry them to shul? Is it?

Just as a side note, I want to add that I witnessed Hatzolah in action this
past shabbos, a man in my shul passed out and someone called hatzolah. Without
exageration, Hatzolah was there within 1 minute. I was absolutly amazed at
their response time. 

Thank You

Daniel Lefton
New York City, NY

>Many people seem to be discussing alot of rumors about one Menashe 
>Klein, known to be the Grand Rav of Ungvar (currently in Brooklyn, New 
>York). Before analysing what Menashe Klein has done, said or is believed
to be have done and said, we should establish one basic fact, his
rabbinic 
>credentials. Can anyone on this list prove that this man actually has a
smicha?
	Smicha nowadays is not like the law degree you display in your signature
line.  It is awarded by many roshei yeshiva today for accomplishments in
learning which would not have gotten the newly minted rabbi  INTO some
yeshivas in Europe.  
	It is also well known that the "rabbinic credentials" of the Chafetz
Chaim were nonexistent until he was well into his 80's (90's?).  In fact,
 until the American yeshiva model of semicha (semicha program with
curriculum,  tests,  graduation ceremonies, etc.) came along,  many
semichas were simply employment contracts by towns agreeing to employ the
named person as Rov.  
	So if Rabbi Klein was in fact Grand Rabbi of Ungvar,  and I certainly
have no reason nor interest in doubting that,  then his "rabbinic
credentials" are secure.  His level of Torah knowledge may be discerned
from reading his tshuvos.  His involvement or noninvolvement in any of
the recent scandals (kiddushei ketana,  heter meah rabbonim) are loshon
hora plain and simple.  
	Please,  stop;  I believe I speak in the name of the vast majority of
subscribers that these personal attacks have gone too far.

Gershon
>
>DANIEL B. SCHWARTZ ESQ: SPECIALIZING IN ALL AREAS OF
>COMPLEX, COMMERCIAL AND MATRIMONIAL LITIGATION
>                         INQUIRE AT

___________________________________________________________________
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]

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


[ 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 ]