Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 163

Saturday, February 13 1999

• Re: leg splits
• Re: K'ruvim
• Re: Synthesis - semantics
• Re: asmachta
• Re: hair covering indoors
• The Cerebral Litvak
• Halakha vs. Aggada (was Haircovering in the House)
• Beis Din for Agunot
• yotzrot
• Re: Halakha vs. Aggada (was Haircovering in the House)
• Re: hair covering indoors
• Re: The second pair of kruvim
• Re: Cherem d'Rabbenu Gershom
• Re: leg splits
• Re: The Cerebral Litvak
• Re: Beis Din for Agunot
• Re: hair covering indoors

<<
No, they cause pisuk raglayim...

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. 
>>

And on what do they base the prohibition?

EDT

<<
 Rashi (shmos, perek 20 pasuk 20) quotes a Mechilta which says that it is
 Assur to add to the two cherubim that HAshem commanded Moshe/Betzalel to
 make. If so how did Shlomo make two additional cherubim in the Beis
 Hamikdash. Even if this was done al pi Nevuah,  can it overide an issur
 in the Torah?? 
>>

Last I checked Sh'lomo significantly predated the M'chilta.  Seems to me the
problem is with the M'chilta, not with Sh'lomo.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

In v2n162, Chaim Brown <C1A1Brown@aol.com> quotes me and writes:
: >>>No! L'hefech! Since the Rav was /not/ a Hegelian, but agreed with Kant that
: no synthesis exists in this case, that I can't picture he'd call Torah uMadah
: a "synthesis".<<<

: You cannot pull ideas out of context and say that since the Rav dealt with
: many unresolvable dichotomies Torah U'Mada is one of them - that is
: conjecture.

I tried to show that it was /not/ conjecture or out of context. Joel Rich
made the observation at the start of the discussion that the Rav would
consider the Torah-only schools to focus on Adam II to the exclusion of
Adam I. To repeat myself, "vikivshuha", a mandate to Adam I, is taken by
the Rav to be a call to study maths and sciences.

IOW, I'm not just saying that since the Rav addressed other unresolved
dialectics, he would have insisted this is unresolvable as well. I'm arguing
that the Rav considered Torah vs. Mada to be an aspect or product of the
dialectic between Adam I vs Adam II, which he believes to be unresolvable.

Which is also why I wrote that the Rav /did/ discuss Torah uMada, but he
did so in different terminology, and with a slightly different conclusion
than Rabbi Lamm's (if R' Lamm really meant "synthesis").

: incompatable with secular study/values.  Whether you call it 'synthesis' is
: semantic (as is the title of R' Lichtenstein's article); what is crucial is
: the Rav (and R' Lichtenstein) demonstrated that such a balance is possible.

Because the Rav viewed it as a balance and not a synthesis, and spent many
years addressing what a synthesis is, I couldn't picture him addressing a
motto that is routinely translated in terms of synthesis.

Yes, it's semantics. As I said the Rav addresses the subject, but in his
own terminology, and, as an aspect of a more fundamental dialetic.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6088 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 12-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

<<
I don't believe that either I or my chosson really expect that I will
collect on the matayim zuz
>>

Not to upset you, but there is a greater than 50% chance that you will collect
the 200 zuz, just not necessarily because of divorce.  

<<
(and if you think about all the weddings performed where neither the chosson
nor the kala has a clue what is in the ketuba, despite the fact that it is
read out loud, for sure they never expect, as they don't even know what is in
it in the first place).
>>

This was successfully argued in court to reject the kesuba as being a legally
binding contract.  The truth is, if the parties invloved don't know what's
going on, the m'sader kidushin didn't do his job right.

<<
Does it make a difference if, over the course of a normal life together,
one would expect that the value of what is promised will be eroded by
inflation to the point of it being virtually worthless (as in the case
of my mother's 10,000 rand house)?
>>

This is why the prenuptials used by many rabbanim nowdays are pegged to the US
Consumer Price Index (there are different indices, and a specific one is
listed).

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
1. If hair is ervah
it's not proper to have ervah showing even in one's own private room (see
begining of Shulchan Aruch) 
>>

But the fact that a woman is permitted to have it uncovered, in front of other
men while in her house, shows that it is NOT improper, despite it being called
erva.

<<
2. It is forbidden for a man to say berachos,
or Daven in front of such a women (unless you rely on the kulla of the
Aruch Hashulchan) so awomen who doesn't cover her hair in the home is a
stumbling block for her husband and sons as they can't learn or say
berachos while facing her.
>>

How does learning creep into the equation?  One may not daven in front of a
mirror, or a window.  Does this mean we should not have them in our houses
either?  No, one must be cautious where one davens.

<<
 3. It is likely that someone may come to the
door and it is possible the women will forget to put a head covering on.
>>

See #1 above, in the house she doesn't have to cover up.

<<
4. One may not Daven if they aren't dressed like they would be if they
were to go outside (ie you can't daven in a bath robe) many opions say
that this would apply to women who don't have there hair covered as well
as they clearly aren't dressed to go outside. So a women who doesn't cover
her hair at home would have to remember to put on a head covering before
davening.
>>

Is this agreed to by all?  How about halachos of men not davening bare-
chested.  If the chest is covered with anything, it seems sufficient, no need
for a dress shirt.

<<
 5. The Gemara of kimchis does indicate there is a benefit to
covering the hair in the house
>>

This g'mara always bothered me.  If all her sons became kohanim g'dolim in her
lifetime doesn't this imply that the older ones either died or were
permanently injured during her lifetime as well.  This is hardly a benefit.
And besides, she is pointed out as an exception, not a rule.  The rule is not
as she did, and to mandate the exception, cover hair at all times in the
house, as halacha for all to follow, is not what the g'mara was driving at.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

I wrote:
>
>>> Although not true for the Agudah community, the MO/ Religious Zionist
>>> communities seem to be too cerebral to be religiously motivating. It seems
>>> that the only topic that generates true passion is "shtachim" - nothing else
>>> really seems to capture imagination (perhaps contributing to the youth
>>> alienation mentioned above). 

Eli Turkel responds:

>I am not sure I agree. First with respect to the agudah community the
>phenomenon that Arnie describes is mainly a sefardi one and somewhat
>less a chasidic. I am not sure that the yeshiva (litvak) world could
>be described as not cerebral.

I would like to explore this a little further. I am not familiar with the
Bnei Akiva yeshivot, but having gone to the Philadelphia Yeshiva (and whose
son goes there now) there is perhaps no better place to judge how allegedly
cerebral the Litvak yeshivos are. If you happen to be in the Yeshiva around
the yamim nora'im, the "aimat hadin" is almost palpable. The question is: is
the same feeling evident in the B'nei Akiva yeshivot around that time of
year? Are students in Bnei Akiva yeshivot genuinely worried that they may
not make it through the next year unless they do teshuvah immediately?  

(Recognize that one can go easily go overboard here as well: a contemporary
of mine from the Yeshiva committed suicide, convinced that he was a rasha).

I believe that there is generally a stronger emotional component to the
right wing, Litvak or chosid alike. This year, the Agudah and OU conventions
took place on the same weekend, about 30 miles apart, and as a result I
attended sessions at both. Bekitzur nimratz,  The OU seemed dry and lifeless
while Aguda generated real excitement. The keynote speaker on Motzei Shabbat
last year talked about (of all things) the importance of Asher Yatzar (!),
yet his point was so compelling and his delivery so effective, that the
emotional impact was undeniable. This might have something to do with the
relative dynamism of the speakers at the different conventions, but maybe
this is the point. The only "centrist"/ religious Zionist speaker that I've
ever heard that generates this kind of excitement is Benny Alon, and what
does he talk about? Shtachim.

My first hand knowedge of the dynamics in the latter community is quite
limited, however. I would appreciate if Eli or anyone else could enlighten
or correct me in this admittedly subjective and perhaps ill-informed comparison.

Arnie Lustiger

Elie Ginsparg writes

>Who decided that just
>because a source was aggadaic that it doesn't play a role in HAlach. (I
>know you said Halachik sources, but step a way from the actual words of
>your post and look at the P'sak din which you suggest--ie. not covering
>the hair in tyhe house) Why shouldn't I
>be concerned with what Chazal say. They weren't joking when they wrote the
>aggadata. Furthermore, the Magen Avraham (a very halachik source) quoted
>in the B.h (o.c. 75:2 D'h mechutz) that it is proper to be machmir in the
>house b/c of the Zohar. So it seems that to limit to basis of a chumra to
>"halachik source" puts a restraint that the MA wouldn't agree
>to. So even if teh strict wording of your post is correct, it's completely
>irrelavent in practice. To say a women has LITTLE basis in a chumra b/c
>the basis is in aggadata is meaningless B/c a halachik source is willing
>to stand behind that same aggadata.

It is more than a little frustrating to be told that my wording, while
correct, is both practically irrelevant and meaningless.  My original
comment, of course, was that a largely non-halakhic humra has been
accepted, while a wholly halakhic humra has not.  This observation
remains apt and I stand by it.

Nor did I claim that aggadah should not play a role in Halakha.  Every
person who recites "Barukh Shem  . ."   in keriat shema implicitly
accepts that such a role exists.  But not every aggadah plays a role.
Moreover, as a general rule, the role that aggadah plays is more
philosophical than legal, more axiological than normative.

Nor would I say that one should not be concerned with what Hazal say.
But certainly one cannnot implement every single directive of Hazal (how
many different mitzvot do Hazal say are "ke-neged kullam"?).  With
respect to Kimhit in particular, it bears noting that an alternative
explanation is offered for the special segulah she received in seeing 7
sons elevated to kohen gadol.

The Magen Avraham is important, but not for the reason Elie thinks.
Those who are well-versed in Halakha know that R. Avraham Gombiner
routinely introduces the Zohar into his perush; this is perhaps the most
distinctive aspect of the Magen Avraham.  In this respect, he is very
much the exception, rather than the rule.  Consider, for example, how
often the Mehabber -- a life-long mekkubal -- introduces a Zoharic rule
into his Shulhan Arukh.

Moreover, I think we have a slightly different view of what happens when
the MA quotes the Zohar.  In my mind, the source remains the Zohar.  For
Elie, it apparently is transformed by citation into a halakhic source.
Forgive me, but I disagree.

Kol tuv and Shabbat shalom,

Eli Clark

Based on this week's sedro it seems that it is very important that a beis din be
objective.  Having any prejudice (literally pre-juding) consitutes subjectivity 
and is begder shochad at least on a hashkofo level if not no a halachic level.

IMHO a beis din should view each case individually.  Setting up a BD with an 
agenda to free agunos makes about as much sense as setting up a BD to promote 
any other "cause".

Today the Senate voted WRT Clinton's impeachment articles.  The more perceptive 
media'niks noted that the Senate is a political body and this is a political 
process NOT a judicial one.  With 5 exceptions everyone followed a party line.  
I can't think of a better contrast of what a beis din should be.

Being pre-disposed is not a merit.  Hevu mesunim badin.  Sit and listen with an 
open mind.

As far as R. Dov Weiss's case is concerned, I think that we do not have enough 
information to pass judgement one way or the other.  Doesn't the halocho sate 
that we need to hear BOTH sides?

This does not lower my empathy for agunot.  Having racmonis on evyonim does not 
change the possuk v'dal lo sehedar berivo.  IOW empathy has no place in a beis 
din.  Neither does deference to high officials. etc.

IMHO a Besi Din should be consituted to determine the din and emes, not to right
social wrongs.

Good Shabbos 
Rich Wolpoe

meinyana dyoma, does anyone know why there are yotzrot for musaf on shkalim
and hachodesh, but not for zachor and para?  [at least in the common
siddurim that i've seen ]


shabat shalom

On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Clark, Eli wrot

> 
> It is more than a little frustrating to be told that my wording, while
> correct, is both practically irrelevant and meaningless.  My original
> comment, of course, was that a largely non-halakhic humra has been
> accepted, while a wholly halakhic humra has not.  This observation
> remains apt and I stand by it.

Sorry if I frustrated you, my point remains the same ie-this is an area
which is kdai to be machmir (if the women can handle it) and I'll agree to
disagree and thank you for pushing me to review the sources and rethink my
opinion 
Elie Ginsparg
 

On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:
> But the fact that a woman is permitted to have it uncovered, in front of other
> men while in her house, shows that it is NOT improper, despite it being called
> erva.
> 

Why do you state this opinion like it's Torah miSinai, this point is
subject to dispute. Many people hold the Hair can't be shown to others
even
in the house. As was already stated well by Eli Clark, my arguements
follow the people which say it would be a problem to show others in the
house, i have already accepted the point that it might be different if you
hold like the opinion you're referring to and have decided to move on 
Elie Ginsparg

On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 Yzkd@aol.com wrote:

> Just my 2 cents:
> 
> See the Ohr Hachayim Hakodosh on Shmos 25:9 V'chein Taasu.
> 
> Kol Tuv
> 
> Yitzchok Zirkind
> 
Thank you for the source, it's a nice chidush to say that al pi nevuah
really means al pi kabalah and the requirements for the beis hamikdash
were really halacha moshe misinai
Elie Ginsparg

On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> <<
> Common sense. And, possibly Cherem d'Rabbeinu Gershom. R' Chaim David
> Halevi - somewhere in his multi-volume "Asei Lecha Rav" - "bleibs shverr"
> if CDRG applies post mortem.
> >>
> 
> But in either case it only applies while the letter is sealed shut (at least
> this is my recollection of the cherem).  Once open, it seems to be fair game.
> 

Not true. Look it up in the Encyclopedia Talmudis on CDRG. RCDH also does
not see being opened as a heter, and either he or the ET, I forget which
and am in Detroit, away from the sources, casts aspersions on the commonly
assumed heter of postcards. But don't trust my memory!

YGB

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

No idea. Look them up!

On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> <<
> No, they cause pisuk raglayim...
> 
> 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. 
> >>
> 
> And on what do they base the prohibition?
> 
> EDT
> 

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 2/12/99 1:38:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, alustig@erenj.com
writes:

<< 
 I would like to explore this a little further. I am not familiar with the
 Bnei Akiva yeshivot, but having gone to the Philadelphia Yeshiva (and whose
 son goes there now) there is perhaps no better place to judge how allegedly
 cerebral the Litvak yeshivos are. If you happen to be in the Yeshiva around
 the yamim nora'im, the "aimat hadin" is almost palpable. The question is: is
 the same feeling evident in the B'nei Akiva yeshivot around that time of
 year? Are students in Bnei Akiva yeshivot genuinely worried that they may
 not make it through the next year unless they do teshuvah immediately?  
  >>
Dear Arnie,
   1. We all have what to work on
   2.  You may be right in your perceptions but , as I'm sure you're aware,
it's     anecdotal evidence
   3. It's very hard to get into peoples' minds to know how much true aimat
hadin there is and how much is sociology/group dynamics.  Again you may be
right, I'm just saying there are other possible interpretations.
   4.  Just for some more anecdotal evidence, 2 of my sons attend(ed)  hesder
Yeshivot(different ones) and both independently remarked how during rosh
hashana one actually felt like they were at a coronation....

Shabbat Shalom,
Joel Rich

I beg to differ.

There have been Batei Din for specific purposes in the past - remember the
"BD shel Kohanim" that set the kesuva for a Kohenes at 400 zuz?

There BD meyuchadim l'inyanei kashrus. Although I am not sure why they
need be called "BD".

B"H somebody is doing something for a problem that creates grave CH - and
we must support them full force.

Besides, our correspondent, Mrs. Boutbil (sp?) wrote that the problems are
about evenly split and they help out men as well - not partial-sounding to
me!

On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Based on this week's sedro it seems that it is very important that a
> beis din be objective.  Having any prejudice (literally pre-juding)
> consitutes subjectivity and is begder shochad at least on a hashkofo
> level if not no a halachic level. 
> 
> IMHO a beis din should view each case individually.  Setting up a BD
> with an agenda to free agunos makes about as much sense as setting up a
> BD to promote any other "cause". 
> 
> Today the Senate voted WRT Clinton's impeachment articles.  The more
> perceptive media'niks noted that the Senate is a political body and this
> is a political process NOT a judicial one.  With 5 exceptions everyone
> followed a party line.  I can't think of a better contrast of what a
> beis din should be. 
> 
> Being pre-disposed is not a merit.  Hevu mesunim badin.  Sit and listen
> with an open mind. 
> 

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 2/12/99 3:04:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, C-
Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

<< > But the fact that a woman is permitted to have it uncovered, in front of
other
 > men while in her house, shows that it is NOT improper, despite it being
called
 > erva.
 > 
 
 Why do you state this opinion like it's Torah miSinai, this point is
 subject to dispute. Many people hold the Hair can't be shown to others
 even
 in the house. As was already stated well by Eli Clark, my arguements
 follow the people which say it would be a problem to show others in the
 house, i have already accepted the point that it might be different if you
 hold like the opinion you're referring to and have decided to move on 
 Elie Ginsparg >>

Perhaps I am mistaken, but according to R' Teitz's post, I think the point is
that even in situations where something for one purpose is called ervah,
doesn' t mean that it has all the halachick implications of other things which
are called ervah. In other words, perhaps there are different categories of
ervah, and uncovered hair may fall into one of them.

Jordan Hirsch  

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


[ 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 ]