Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 158

Monday, February 8 1999

• Re: Shok in MB
• Tefilloh Betzibbur
• Hair covering
• Re: Hair Covering and Textualism
• Torah Umada - Synthesis
• Reaction?
• Zmanei Tefillo
• [Fwd: Re: Halachic Man]
• Re: Hair covering
• Re: Avodah V2 #155
• Re: Hair covering
• Re: t'filla b'tzibbur and chazoras ha'SHaTZ
• Re: keriyas hatorah
• Re: Moshe
• Re: Avodah V2 #156
• Re: hair as ervah
• Re: T'mimus and name calling
• Re: Zmanei Tefillo
• Re: [Fwd: Re: Halachic Man]
• Re: T'mimus and name calling
• Re: [Fwd: Re: Halachic Man]
• Re: Hair Covering and Textualism
• Re: Passaci Poskim
• Pisuk raglaim
• Re: Pisuk raglaim

On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 an alert reader wrote:

> Dear  RYGB,
> 
> I have just returned to Avodah after about two weeks of busyness with
> finals, registration, etc. and saw a reference by you to the MB as being
> among those poskim who define shok as including the lower leg. I don't
> know what's been said before the latest issue, but I believe that the MB
> clearly states in 75:2 that the shok begins from the knee up.  Do you
> interpret him differently? Do I misunderstand you? 
>

He is correct. The MB and CA are the lone mattirim. The AH, SA haRav,
Chazon Ish and most others are machmir among the Acharonim. See Nishmas
Avraham 75:3 for a list. Sorry! 

YGB

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

>>The shittas HaGR"A is famous for saying that keriyas shema *U'birchoseah*,
including semichas geulah l'tefillah, must all be done before sof zman K"Sh
even at the expense of tefillah b'tzibbur. If you start shacharis on Shabbos
morning at 9:00 you won't make it many weeks.  Acc. to GR"A rather than say
K'SH early by itself and daven b'tzibbur, it is better to complete all of
shacharis b'yechidus.  I have heard R' Chaim held this way as well.  
- -Chaim<<

I think the Gro holds the same for davening maariv before tzeis, too.

If one paskens 100% like the Gro, fine.  What if one does not hold exclusively 
like the Gro - do you still give up Tefillo betzibbur to daven bizman?

Rich Wolpoe 

In the recent volume of writings of Rav Yehiel Weinberg, there is an interesting
letter about hair covering relevant to the recent discussion.  He starts off by
saying that he will not discuss whether hair covering is a din torah or a minhag
torah.  However, with regard to a sheitel, he holds that the principle behind
hair covering is that a married woman should want to look attractive only to her
husband, and that principle should be used in evaluating a sheitel, as well as
other aspects of zniut.  

This would suggest that he holds that there are different principles of ervah
(or at least zniut) applicable to married women, which explains why hair is only
a problem for them.  


Meir Shinnar

On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> However, the consequences of falling prey to ervah are much more grave
> by eishes ish. Perhaps that's why one requires a heker, and the other
> doesn't. 
> 

Nice chiddush, but needs some ra'ayos.

BTW, an interesting point for you to consider as a possible smach for
*you* (although I would reject it) is that technically, one is allowed to
read Shma when the erva of a woman's thigh is covered even if it is
covered by trousers - an halachically unacceptable covering.

> How do you define the word -- here, as well as in the last pasuk of
> Yisro? Are a man's ankles, as he walks up stairs, "alluring"? (Someone
> noted to me that Rashi doesn't mention anything about the kohein's
> ankles.) 
> 

It's not the ankles. It's the "ever". Even though it was covered with
michnosayim.

YGB

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

From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)

I too am bothered with the idea of a _synthesis_ of Torah uMada, as that 
would mean that the result is a new beryah, neither thesis or antithesis, 
neither mada or, ch"v, Torah.<<

IMHO the model #1 I cited above, works as follows:

Torah is always larned and transmitted as Torah, untainted by mada, or any 
other synthetic ingredient <smile>.

That pure pristine Torah is then applied to the contemporary society and 
syntehised on an "ad hoc" basis as needed

However, if the Torah were syntheiszed and THAT synthesized Torah were 
passed down, there would be the danger of a dialetctic that could corrupt 
the original Mesorah.

So far as I know, the Rav never engaged in modern philosophical themes, nor 
used chochmos Yisreol techniques during his Gemoro Shiur.

There is an agadeto re: synthesis, something to do with a Roman and a Tanna 
disucssing the product of a horse and a donkey, out comes a sterile mule.

IOW you cannot BUILD on a synthesis, it's articifical and therefore should 
never be a bryia bifnei atzmo.

So far as I know, all of the Riets/MYP shiurim at YU taught Torah as Torah 
and did not synthesize within the shiur.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

>>  Rousing The Sleeping Giant - the turmoil within the Reform movement, and how
we should react.<<

I am curious:  Are frum Jews supposed to react to any non-frum pronouncment?

By extension I am confused re: rabbonnim who asser setting foot into 
conservative congregations, yet they are machmir that such "non-shuls" not be 
sold to become churches.  memo nafshoch???

Rich Wolpoe

>>
Actually, the GR"A he;d that his zman was correct b'toras vadai, not as a
l'chatchila.  As the GR"A wrote - look outside and you will see R"T was wrong.

- -Chaim<<

Undoubtedly the GRA held of puk chazzei <smile>

Based upon science, the Gra makes a lot of sense.

Based upon Mesorah, virtually no one held like the Gra before the Gra.  Which 
means he essentially overturned the minhogim of all of Eastern and Central 
Europe, based upon verifiable astronomical observation.  Think of the 
ramificaitons.

However, many Chassidishe communities as well as many German-based communities 
continue to hold like the pre-Gra "Minhag Yisroel" or at least minhog 
ho'ashkenzim.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------2B8A5CB24D9D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Rabbi Gottlieb responded to my question of yesterday and I thank him for 
his insight.	

	mark e gottlieb wrote:
> 
> Notice that "HM does not struggle with his evil impulses," implying, one
> could easily argue, that he has a yetzer hara, but that he has either
> vanquished it so thoroughly that it no longer presents a viable threat to
> his spirituality, or that his natural intellectual temperment, which
> affirms the temporal, corporeal, this-worldly, as much as it brings
> its own theoretical framework to bear on the given reality, is so
> aligned and congruous with the normative truths of the cosmos, that
> there is no gulf between HM's duties and his desires. The larger
> context of the passage cited below supports my second reading. The
> typology of the HM developed here is very indebted, it would seem,
> to the Hegelian notion of freedom within objetive order (but cf. n. 80),
> and his diagnosis of the dualisms plaguing modern man's personality that were
> fostered by the Platonic-Christian metaphysic. The Rambam's discussion of the
> relative superitority of the Tzaddik Gamur over the Kovesh et Yitzro
> in his Shemoneh Perakim provides an impoortan historical and
> philosophical backdrop for this entire passage. Take care.
> 
> On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Steve. Katz wrote:
> 
> > On page 65 of Halachic Man
> > "Halachic man does not struggle with his evil impulses, nor does he
> > clash with the tempster who seeks to deprive  him of his senses.
> > Halachic men are not subject to the whispered proffer of desire, and
> > they need not exert themselves to resist its pull."
> > Does this mean that HM is so involved in Avodas Hashem and learning
> > that he has no yetzer harah?
> > sk
> >

--------------2B8A5CB24D9D
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from haven.uchicago.edu (root@haven.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.3])
	by crow.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA02989
	for <katzco@sprintmail.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 19:48:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from midway.uchicago.edu (root@midway.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.12])
	by haven.uchicago.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA18091
	for <katzco@sprintmail.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 21:48:31 -0600 (CST)
Received: from harper.uchicago.edu (root@harper.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.7]) by midway.uchicago.edu (8.8.5/8.8.3) with ESMTP id VAA01344 for <katzco@sprintmail.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 21:48:29 -0600 (CST)
Received: from localhost (16000@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harper.uchicago.edu (8.8.5/8.8.3) with SMTP id VAA24055 for <katzco@sprintmail.com>; Sun, 7 Feb 1999 21:48:28 -0600 (CST)
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 21:48:27 -0600 (CST)
From: mark e gottlieb <megottli@midway.uchicago.edu>
X-Sender: megottli@harper.uchicago.edu
Reply-To: mark e gottlieb <megottli@midway.uchicago.edu>
To: "Steve. Katz" <katzco@sprintmail.com>
Subject: Re: Halachic Man
In-Reply-To: <36BE2AC6.581A@sprintmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.990207210550.13037A-100000@harper.uchicago.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-UIDL: 32719bdb3d4bf4abaf21694ee4998733
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011

Notice that "HM does not struggle with his evil impulses," implying, one
could easily argue, that he has a yetzer hara, but that he has either
vanquished it so thoroughly that it no longer presents a viable threat to
his spirituality, or that his natural intellectual temperment, which
affirms the temporal, corporeal, this-worldly, as much as it brings
its own theoretical framework to bear on the given reality, is so
aligned and congruous with the normative truths of the cosmos, that
there is no gulf between HM's duties and his desires. The larger
context of the passage cited below supports my second reading. The
typology of the HM developed here is very indebted, it would seem,
to the Hegelian notion of freedom within objetive order (but cf. n. 80),
and his diagnosis of the dualisms plaguing modern man's personality that were
fostered by the Platonic-Christian metaphysic. The Rambam's discussion of the
relative superitority of the Tzaddik Gamur over the Kovesh et Yitzro
in his Shemoneh Perakim provides an impoortan historical and
philosophical backdrop for this entire passage. Take care.

On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Steve. Katz wrote:

> On page 65 of Halachic Man 
> "Halachic man does not struggle with his evil impulses, nor does he 
> clash with the tempster who seeks to deprive  him of his senses. 
> Halachic men are not subject to the whispered proffer of desire, and 
> they need not exert themselves to resist its pull."
> Does this mean that HM is so involved in Avodas Hashem and learning  
> that he has no yetzer harah?
> sk
> 




--------------2B8A5CB24D9D--

Pure Haskofo.

On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu wrote:

> In the recent volume of writings of Rav Yehiel Weinberg, there is an
> interesting letter about hair covering relevant to the recent
> discussion.  He starts off by saying that he will not discuss whether
> hair covering is a din torah or a minhag torah.  However, with regard to
> a sheitel, he holds that the principle behind hair covering is that a
> married woman should want to look attractive only to her husband, and
> that principle should be used in evaluating a sheitel, as well as other
> aspects of zniut. 
> 
> This would suggest that he holds that there are different principles of
> ervah (or at least zniut) applicable to married women, which explains
> why hair is only a problem for them. 
> 

YGB

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

There are any number of uses of the term "erva."  In this post, I am referring to
non-tefella erva, and interactions between people who are not married to each
other.  I am not going to discuss hair, as that too is a special case.  I hope to
post on both of these later

It seems to me that this discussion of erva misses some rules.  When one develops
rules, one can then see applications, and find out whether people are genuinely
arguing about the rules, or merely the applications.  The crucial place to start
this discussion is in Even Haezer 21 which deals with these rules.  There one finds
a fundamental dispute between the various opinions in the Rama 21:5.  Rama cites a
number of different leinincies in physical touching of a person of the opposite sex,
all revolving around touching where there is no sexual intent or erotic activity.
He concludes that "thus our custom is to be leinint on these matter."  Pitchai
Teshuva 21(3) cites the famous Ritva and Yam shel Shlomo on this matter who agree
with the Rama.  Others do argues as noted by Otzar haposkim on this siman.

Thus, when one speak about a particular activity, one has to ask the following
questions:

1.    Is it an erotic or sexual activity?  If it is, it is assur.

2.    If it is not an erotic or a sexual activity, then it is mutar according to
Rama, and assur according to others.

What about if it is non sexual to the one who is doing it, but other people think it
is sexual? (To imagine the simplest case, consider blind people in a co-ed skinny
dipping party!).  This is a famous dispute.  Ritva, cited above, seems to limit the
right to do this to eminent talmedai chachamim only; Yam shel shlomo, I think,
limits this cases of common practice (such as a medical examination).

As one can see from this short discussion, it is easy to see that the disputes that
one sees on this email list are really frequently social disputes about whether a
particular activity really is sexual or not.  That is, of course, a hard question to
answer.  I will give you a rule of thumb that I view as "pretty good" when it comes
to physical contact.  Any contact that men do to other men routinely, and men do to
women routinely and women do to other women routinely, halacha permits men to do to
women.  Thus, in our society, there is no such thing as social kissing.  When a law
professor kisses students "hello," he or she gets fired.  That is not true for hand
shaking, which I think is mayikar hadin mutar.  Applying this to standards of dress
is very hard, but, in my view, the principle remains the same.

Michael Broyde

I think, in light of recent questionable publicationsof the Seridei Eish's
letters, we need to know:

1. To whom and when was this letter written.
2. Did he intend that it be published.
3. Did the person who published it do so with permission.

For the moment, I will not question the Hashkofo expressed by the SE, but
whether, in light of the above questions, it can be introduced into
evidence...

> On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu wrote:
> 
> > In the recent volume of writings of Rav Yehiel Weinberg, there is an
> > interesting letter about hair covering relevant to the recent

YGB

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

Joel Rich quoted:
> Volozhin and Brisk were guided by the central awareness
that, in the words of the Rambam (Hilkhot Tefilla 6:8), "the
mitzva of Torah study is greater than that of tefilla."
> For a long time, at least until the end of the 1950's,
the Rav would not hesitate to pray alone in order to make more
time available for learning. <
The ongoing thread re davening with a minyan, esp. the view in Brisk that
stressed the mitzva of Torah study over the mitzva of t'filla, brings back
to me a discussion that has occurred more than once among the Kaye, Scholer
(a "mid-sized" law firm based in NYC) mincha-minyan members re the
propriety of there not being a full "chazoras haSHaTZ" (instead, [most of]
the members silently [attempt to] say the words of the Amidah's first three
b'rachos -- save the p'sukim in the k'dushah, which we all say aloud --
together with the reading-aloud SHaTZ, after which said members and SHaTZ
say the rest of the Amidah in the usual, silent manner).  The relevant
sections of OC (especially the words of RMA) would indicate that such a
practice is only warranted "b'sha'as ha'd'chak"; moreover, even under such
conditions, at least one person should be answering "omain" to those first
three b'rachos in order for them not to be l'vato'loh.  Aside from the
half-serious retort that it's dochuk for an att'y to even take 10 minutes
out of the working (read "billable") day for minchah, the basic response is
that our minyan is following in the footsteps of Rav Soloveitchik z'tz'l'
re how the post(?/during?)-shiur mincha minyan was conducted and/or that
Rav Aharon Lichtenstein sh'l'y't'ah so paskened we should daven; moreover,
it is said that Rav Soloveitchik emphasized the Maimonidean point of
t'fillah *b'*tzibbur, which is accomplished far better by all members
saying the Amidah together.

General comments are welcome, but I bring all this up as a prelude to
wondering if the quoted shiur practice occurred only because Rav
Soloveitchik wanted to return to learning ASAP, as a "half/k'dushah"
approach to minchah might essentially (issues of b'rochos l'vato'loh aside)
be considered no worse than davening bi'chidus.

Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ
(and member of MIS staff at Kaye, Scholer, et al., LLP)

In a message dated 2/7/99 9:20:10 PM EST, C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:

> >>>I seem to remember a shiur in which the Rov described krias haTorah as
>  : needing to be ki'nsinosa,   so that every shva na and shva nach and
>  : mil'el and mil'ra was me'akev and needed to be corrected.
>  
>  I find this hard to implement.<<<
>  
>  Don't know about the lomdus, but the makor for the shitah is the RAmbam (
> what
>  else? : - ) See KS"M to Tefilah 12:6, Tur siman 142.  
>  

Once heard of a Godol B'yisroel who was once asked by tha Baal Koreh, how was
his reading, he answered except for Ivre and Trop it was beautiful.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/7/99 8:20:34 PM EST, C-Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

> Furthermore what I said about Moses understanding everything except 
>  infinity, I think was really said about King Solomon. ( I think I 
>  learned this in elementry school and my memory may be somewhat faulty.) 
>  
Please see Ndorim 38a

With regard to Taamei Mitzvohs the Medrosh (BM"R Parshas Chukas) says that
Shlomo Hamelech said on Poroh Adumoh "Omarti Achak'mo Vhe R'choko", however
HKB"H said to Moshe RO"H "Loch Ani Megaleh".

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/7/99 11:27:09 PM EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

>  (And,  of course,  Klal
>  Yisrael wore shtreimlach when they came out of Mitzrayim:  just check
>  some contemporary coloring books.) 

As the Gemoroh says in Arvei Psochim (117a) "Efsher Yisroel Shochatu Es
Pischeihen V'notlu Luloveihoin Vlo Omru Shiro" (is it then possible that the
Yidden would sacrifice their Korban Pessach... and not say Hallel), is it
possible that AAO"H did not wear a shtreimel <g>.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/7/99 8:29:41 PM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

> Appreciate your analysis, however, still waiting on the kisui palms
>  source!
>  
See Yalkut Shimoine Shmuel Beis 6 Simon 143, also brought in RaDaK Shmuel Beis
6:20.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

>>From: micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger:

>>If you're willing to agree that the typical frum Jew is off the derech,
>>would you be willing to agree that we need to be m'kareiv him -- with a
>>kiruv movement paralleling what we aim at the non-frum?
---------------------------------------------

Hear Hear!  For quite a while now I've thought that in addition to outreach
we should be doing some inreach.

Gad Frenkel

In a message dated 2/8/99 1:28:03 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> 
>  Undoubtedly the GRA held of puk chazzei <smile>
>  
>  Based upon science, the Gra makes a lot of sense.
>  
>  Based upon Mesorah, virtually no one held like the Gra before the Gra.  
> Which 
>  means he essentially overturned the minhogim of all of Eastern and Central 
>  Europe, based upon verifiable astronomical observation.  Think of the 
>  ramificaitons.
>  
There was a complaint to the Baal Hatanyoh, when he wrote in the Seder
Hachnosas Shabbos WRT Shitaas Rabeinu Taam "U'mah Gam Ke Daas Zu Hee Neged
Hachush".

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

> HM does not struggle with his evil impulses


Compare with the Tanya's view of Tzadik Gomur.


Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/8/99 5:30:10 PM EST, Garry.J.Frenkel@ssa.gov writes:

> Hear Hear!  For quite a while now I've thought that in addition to outreach
>  we should be doing some inreach.

In the words of Chazal Kshot Atzmicho, (in the larger sense), the L. Rebbe
said that in todays turmoil it is an isuue of Chtof Vachol Chatof Ushtee.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

On Mon, 8 Feb 1999 Yzkd@aol.com wrote:

> > HM does not struggle with his evil impulses
> 
> Compare with the Tanya's view of Tzadik Gomur. 
> 

It is very likely that RYBS copied the concept from Tanya to a Brisker
perspective, no?

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 2/8/99 11:35:30 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<<  an interesting point for you to consider as a possible smach for
 *you* (although I would reject it) is that technically, one is allowed to
 read Shma when the erva of a woman's thigh is covered even if it is
 covered by trousers - an halachically unacceptable covering.
  >>

I fail to see how pants are considered an unacceptable covering.

Jordan Hirsch

In a message dated 2/8/99 10:12:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< RYGB: writes:>> would like to take this idea a tad further. I would like to
 suggest that the list have an "official" Posek or Poskim. It would probably
be 
 easier for Micha to find one in Passaic than elsewhere, but I am sure
wherever 
 he finds one it will be a reliable one.<<
  >>

I don't know if anybody has responded to this yet, but it seems that this is a
singularly bad idea. If the purpose of this list is a discussion of Torah,
psak halacha is not the responsibility of this list. There will always be
differences of opinion in any event as to which psak should be followed.
Inasmuch as those differences make up the meat of our discussions, they should
not be hampered in any way.

Jordan Hirsch 

>because pisuk raglayim is not tzanu'a even for men
	As they have taken to saying on this list, zu minayin lach?  Rashi
mentions it for women.

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]

On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> >because pisuk raglayim is not tzanu'a even for men
> 	As they have taken to saying on this list, zu minayin lach?  Rashi
> mentions it for women.
>

Rabbi Tzuriel told it to me personally, but in the Beis Yechezkel vol. 1
p. 304 he quotes the Maharil in the Likutim and Sefer Eleh Ha'Mitzvos
l'R"M Chagiz. 

YGB

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

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


[ 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 ]