Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 047

Monday, May 10 1999

• "WORTH-LESS" Women
• Re: Yes, we've been here before but, for those interested...
• Gra - Ta Shma
• Sefiro Evolution
• Halacha & Minhag in Ashkenaz
• Multiple minhagim in a single locality
• Messianic speculation (water on Har Habayit)
• Gadol Hador Specialists
• Census Totals - Bemidbar
• "highlights of the lithuanian yeshiva heritage tour" video
• Re: Yes, we've been here before but, for those interested...
• Pesahim 112a
• Re: Yes, we've been here before but, for those interested...
• Re: Yes, we've been here before but, for those interested...
• Re: Sefirah: Does Excitement Equal Simhah? / Baseball /Yeshiva dinners
• Re: Sefirah: Does Excitement Equal Simhah? / Baseball /Yeshiva dinners

In this past week's Parsha, the Torah describes The halacha of Erachin. 
I have not seen this discussed anywhere, but the Torah apparently puts a
monatary value on human beings based solely on their sex.  In all cases,
men are worth more then women, even at the age of 1 month!

Doesn't this seemingly negate all of the last 20 years of religious
popular literature, scholerly articles, and assorted apologetic Klap-Trap
?

Good Luck on this one, 

Shmuel Akiva Drebin


___________________________________________________________________
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]

In a message dated 5/9/99 7:12:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
C-Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

<<  
 #11 is a virtual impossibilty today as Klal Israel has become too
 partisan and fractious.  Even in this last  generation of gedolim there
 was no universal acceptance of who was the Gadol Hador.  YU thought it
 was the Rav.  The Yeshiva world in America thought it was Rav Aaron
 Kotler followed by Rav Moshe. In Israel it was Rav Shlomo Zalman
 Auerbach. Chasidim thought it was their individual Rebbes (The Satmer
 Rebbe or The Lubavitcher Rebbe, etc.) >>

I am curious to know if the term Gadol Hador the way we understand it was 
used four or five generations ago. I think that there are so many 
sociological questions at play as to how the Jewish community is constituted, 
and the diffusion of Torah knowledge among the laity of the Orthodox 
community, that it might be difficult to speak of Gdolim or a Gadol Hador in 
any kind of constructive way. There will always be great Roshei Yeshiva, and 
whether they qualify as Gdolim based on your criteria or not, they will serve 
the purpose for their Talmidim which is required of them. It may be 
irrelevant whether they are "Gdolim." And is it always true that Gdolim 
function as Poskim as well? Didn't the Lakewood Yeshiva have a posek, 
seperate from the post of Rosh Yeshiva? And isn't there a difference between 
Roshei Yeshiva and community Rabbonim and Chasidic Rebbes that precludes any 
kind of universal standards? 
I think that when R' Moshe started receiving Shailos, he was not a Gadol in 
your sense, but rather, over time, as the obvious quality of his work was 
increasingly recognized, it became evident the his Torah scholarship was 
different than other poskim,in terms of consistency, integrity, humanity, 
depth, and scope. In other words, we make theGdolim to some extent by the 
demands we put on them, and the way in which those demands call from them 
greatness. 
Just some thoughts on the subject...

Jordan 

RYGB:>>I guess Prof. Ta-Shma has little use for the Bi'ur Ha'Gra on shulchan
Aruch.<<

How so?

Rich W.

RYGB: >>They evolved on their own.
They therefore are not necessarily internally consistent, nor more than 
approximately similar to Yud Beis Chodesh.
(Otherwise we would *all* be shaving everyday of Sefira.)
Therefore, minhag ha'olam is "lo kiblu aly'hu" to ban fundraising dinners 
(perhaps, granted, for bottom line considerations.
V'yesh l'ayein gabei baseball, v'tzorich iyun gadol!<<

Memo Nafashach!  If the Gro could overturn Minhog based upon chidush and 
analysizs of sources, (despite centuries Ashkenaic practice and interpretation 
to the contrary) why can't RJB Soloviechik, too?  
The Rav claimed that aveilus MUST fall into the pre-existing constructs of 
aveilus - that aveilus could not have evolved halahcically in a vacuum.  
Therefore he supere-imposed a structure akin to yud-beis chodesh.

Is there some takkono that limits original halachic structures to the Gro?

Rich Wolpoe 

>>
Slightly before your arrival here at Avodah we discussed the 
yeshiva-world/academic-world dichotomy. The distinction is quite manifest 
here, of course, but I fail to see, in any event, how a historian can prove 
the Rav or the GRA "wrong". If they found the source of a minhag in Bavli, 
Yerushalmi, etc., then that is a makor, period.<<

Several points I'd like to make.
1) This is not a function of academics.  This dovetails well with various 
statments by Maharil and Remo
2) Livtaks in general, the Gro in particularl, engaged in "academic" lessons re:
halocho w/o intending to overturn the actual practice.  This is a form of 
halocho v'lo lemaase.
3) As such the Gro was not wasting time in revising minhogim.  He was performing
talmud Toah as opposedto paskening sh'eilos.  This distcintion is very 
Litvisher, it has little meaning in otehr communities (eg Germany) where the the
implicaitons would have been followed literally.
4) The Gro assuemd that all halaocho stems from TB/TY, etc.
5) Maharil, others, hold that Minahg Ahskenza was an indpendent non-textual 
source that often deviates from texts suc has TB/TY.
6) Gro, and Chassidim's resivions were virtuallt always titled towards Sefardic 
practice. This is because Sefardic Mesorah more cloesly parallels TB and the 
texts.
7) Gro ignored centuries of Ashkenaz minhog and interpretation in an attmept to 
restore halaocho to what it used to be (perhaps to the TB era).
8) Simlarly, "academics" such as Ta Shma are attempting to restore Ahseknaic 
practice to what it was pre-18th century, that is based upon mesorah and not 
always reconciled to TB
9) RJB Soloveichik also reconstructs Halocho w/o re: to prevalent minhog.  This 
is based upon Gro-like analysis.  I'm not sure how it is that RYGBis comfortable
with the Gro's revisions but not those of later Briskers who essentailly use the
Gro as their model.
10) I personally accept Brisker analysis as a valid method of learning.  I 
question it's conclusions as afar as hlacho goes.  But, so di a number of 
Briskers who continued to wear wool Talleisim even absent Techeiles of any sort.
11) The logical conclusiong of Gro-like revisionism would be to make all halocho
cofnform to TB.  This would in effect eradicate any unique Ashkenazic Mesorah 
and tend tomake Ahskenazz conform to essentially Sefardic minhog.  Examples:
A) Boruch Hashem at Maariv
B) Tefilin on chol hamoed
C) Ato Konnanot over Amitz Koach on YK
D) Elimination of Yotzros (eg Kalir, Mehssulem ben Kkalonymos, etc.)
E) Morid hatol
(I wonder how Sefardim would have reacted had one of their geolim suggested 
abandoning large segments of Sefardic liturgy in favor of Ashkenaz?)
12) How did the Gro (and Chasssidim) seem to "forget" Minhog Ahsekenaz?
A) A yeshiviher assumption that all halochoa must be Talmudic
B) Perhaps 1648, etc. weakened the Mesorah
C) Gro was more concernd with the lomdus, and was not addressing the halcoho on 
a lemaase level.
D) Kabbalists tended to follow Sefardic liturgy

IOW, this is not a "Rejection" of Beiur haGro, it's a "Revision" of how to learn
it.
   
Rich Wolpoe

From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>

>>ou have more than once asserted that every person who came to America 
(or at least NYC) after the first Jewish community was established 
should have been required to follow that community's minhag.  However, 
that is simply not the case.<<

BTW, I think I simply questioned the practice; IOW, I do not recall asserting 
that this was not ok, rather that it was questionable. 

A bit of history is in order.  Dr. Grinstein claimed that the first Ashkenazic 
Jews circa 1820 did not wish to follow th Sefardic Minhag and requested an 
Ashkenza minyan within Sh'eirth Yisreol and were turned down.  They then started
their own shul.  This founded a new minhog  in NYC, that is, if you cannot get 
your way, start your own shul! <smile>

No doubt we have precedents re: separate botei dinnim in the same place, and 
that competing minhoggim co-existed, Amseterdam and Hamburg come to mind

It is not clear as to where the lines are drawn.

In fact, I'm not sure that this has ever been applied consistently.  The point I
want to make is: ok.  The original settlers of EY were sefardim adn Talmidei 
haGro.  By now, we have 2 Btei dinim, clearly an Ahskenza and Sefardic.  Within 
the Ahskenaz, it is not clear to me that the talmidei haGro are a majority 
EXCEPT that was new immigrangs came in they took on that minhog.

Had the same thing happenind in NYC then:
1) the first Ashkeznim would have adopted Sefardic practice, until all woul have
absorbed it.
OR
2) The first Ahskenazim would have set up a legitimate 2nd beis din.  In taht 
case, the minhog would have been predominated by German Ashkenazim, becaue 
Eastern Europeans came much later.

This seems to boild own to issues of bitul, cnataicho naase neveilo and chozeir 
venaiiur.  At what time did a segment start to overwhelm the pre-existing 
popluace?

Rather than making any assertion is made,  I have a LOT of questions.   I really
doubt that simple demographics explains it all away, neither in NYC nor in EY.  
I think it was a function of refusal of various communities to dissolve their 
identities in NYC. In fact, it is similar in EY, that is various Chassidim have 
not dissolved themselves.  The question for me is, would German Jews whose 
minhog is to ware Tefilin on chol HaMoed be forced to follow the prevaliing 
customer in EY?  Lich'ora they must, based upon what was written, 

BUT

If each individual minhog/kehillo has been able to prevserve and maintain its 
individual character, so how is Minhag Ashkenaz (i.e Frankfort and environs 
different? 

Rich Wolpoe

A Lubavitcher on a different list I'm on wrote in connection to the
water on Har Habayit:
> But there is nothing wrong with saying that the Geula is imminent
> (after all it is
> a central theme in Judaism that Moshiach can be revealed at any
> time, even while
> you read this email) or to point to events that seem to be
> fufillments of
> prophecies. Additionally, there have been various chachamim who
> actually gave
> dates
> for what they said were potential "kitzim", or auspicious times
> that *could*
> result
> in the true and ultimate Redemption, if things go right. Since all
> those "kitzim"
> have passed, it could happen anytime now.

OTOH, many of those chachamim who suggested that the Moshiach was
imminent based on certain "signs" (e.g., Ramban, living in 13th
cent.) were wrong.  Historically, such speculation, especially when
popularized, has led to great calamities, e.g. Shabbetai Zvi (the
false messiah).

Those of us who feel that the Lubavitcher obsession with Moshiach is
dangerous do not disagree with the fact that normative Judaism
considers it important to believe that the Moshiach can come any day.
 The question is: should we believe that there is any greater chance
that he will come in our generation as opposed to any other?  If
people do think that way, then some people's belief in Yiddishkeit
will be shattered if in fact he doesn't come.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

It seems to me that Being Gadol haDor may have sub-specialties.

1)  I once read that the MB/Chofetz Chaim was the tzadik haDor but that the 
Aruch haShulchan was the Poseik haDor

2)  Simlarly, my  rebber at Ner Yisroel claimed that the Griz was THE Gadol 
hador - especially in EY, but it seems likely that the CI was more influential 
as a poseik than was the Griz.

3) Similarly, at YU, while the RAv was often considered THE Gadol, R. Moshe was 
usually considered the Poseik hador

4) Similarly in Lubavicher circels, Rav Dworkin was THE poseik.  That did not 
take away the status of the rebbe as THE gadol amongst his chassidim.

Rich Wolpoe

Census totals for each shevet are divisible by 100, except for Gad, which
is divisible by 50.  Are these numbers rounded to the nearest 50, or are
they the exact count?  If they are exact, is it not phenomenal how round
they are?  Even if they are rounded to the nearest 50, is it not phenomenal
that for 11 out of 12, the nearest 50 is divisible by 100?  Do any
meforshim take note of this?

Moshe Esral

From Belarus Sig...

...a 55 minute video entitled
"highlights of the lithuanian yeshiva heritage tour".  this was extracted 
from 25 hours of film taken by cameramen accompanying rabbi leib baron of 
montreal and his son rabbi elchanon baron, director of the yeshiva ahavas 
torah baranovich in jerusalem, rabbi leizer, former gabbai of one of
the shuls of minsk,  rabbi y. levovitz, rabbi nachum zeldes of lakewood, 
new jersey, and others returning to the sites where they
studied as young
men and their families.


....

those wishing to obtain a copy of the above described film, "highlights of 
the lithuanian yeshiva heritage tour"  can do so by contacting the yeshiva 
ahavas torah baranovich, p.o. box 57075, jerusalem 91570, israel.  the 
telephone number is 972-2-571-1771.  the fax number is 972-2-571-1772.
the e-mail address is branvich@inter.net.il.



...


This SIG (belarus@lyris.jewishgen.org) is hosted by
        JewishGen: The Home of Jewish Genealogy
        Visit our home page at http://www.jewishgen.org

TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:

> 
> I am curious to know if the term Gadol Hador the way we understand it was
> used four or five generations ago. I think that there are so many
> sociological questions at play as to how the Jewish community is constituted,
> and the diffusion of Torah knowledge among the laity of the Orthodox
> community, that it might be difficult to speak of Gdolim or a Gadol Hador in
> any kind of constructive way. There will always be great Roshei Yeshiva, and
> whether they qualify as Gdolim based on your criteria or not, they will serve
> the purpose for their Talmidim which is required of them. It may be
> irrelevant whether they are "Gdolim." And is it always true that Gdolim
> function as Poskim as well? Didn't the Lakewood Yeshiva have a posek,
> seperate from the post of Rosh Yeshiva? And isn't there a difference between
> Roshei Yeshiva and community Rabbonim and Chasidic Rebbes that precludes any
> kind of universal standards?

> Just some thoughts on the subject...
> 
> Jordan




You raise some interesting questions.  My intuition tells me that the 
term "Gadol" or "Gadol HaDor" was coined in yeshivishe circles.  I have 
no idea how far back the terms go. My best guess is that it must have 
originated about the same time that R. Chaim Volozhiner established the 
Yeshiva as we know it today.

It's possible that we are just playing with semantics, though. The 
nomenclature of today may not be the same as it was 200 or 2000 years 
ago but the idea is the same.  The Gadol of today may be the Rish Galusa 
of yesteryear.  The definition may be altered somewhat due to political 
or socio-economic reasons but essentially, it remains the same and I 
think the basic definitions I give are apropos and need only minor 
rectifications to reflect the era. 

As I think about it some more, it is unlikely that any generation could 
point to a Gadol Hador that was universally accepted.  Perhaps I am 
really defining Moshiach.  Certainly each subgroup considers it's Gadol 
to be the Gadol Hador.  If we look back into  history, we probably have 
20/20 hindsight and could more easily chose a Gadol Hador of a 
particular ear or generation... The Rambam, Rashi, The Ramban, The Gra, 
R. Chaim Volohzhiner.  Maybe the only way we can "see" who is the real 
Gadol HaDor is through the lens of history.  

As for your other points.  You are indeed correct about a Posek being 
separate from a Gadol Witness the co-existence of R. Aharon Kotler 
(Gadol) and R. Moshe Finstein. I believe I covered that partially by # 
7. There indeed may be other qualifying factors in determining Gadlus as 
in the case of R. Aharon Kotler who re-established the yeshiva system of 
Europe on American soil.  W/o that event who knows where Torah Judaism 
would be in America today.  OTOH you can argue that the Eis Laasos of 
transplantation of Jewry from Europe to America post Holocaust would 
have created the same situation and that the Yeshiva would have evolved 
anyway.  I don't know.

As for you following point:

>I think that when R' Moshe started receiving Shailos, he was not a 
>Gadol in
>your sense, but rather, over time, as the obvious quality of his work 
>was
>increasingly recognized, it became evident the his Torah scholarship 
>was
>different than other poskim, in terms of consistency, integrity, 
>humanity,
>depth, and scope. In other words, we make theGdolim.

I agree but that is covered by # 10 and #11.

Finally, my list was not meant to be exhaustive but only a springboard 
for discussion to see if there is some sort of consensus about how we 
can define Gadlus and eliminate those who certainly would not be 
Gedolim.

So, What's the point, you may ask? I don't know.  Just the fun of 
discussion, I guess.

HM

R. Daniel Eidensohn writes:

>The only source (aside from the Ben Ish Chai) who discusses this gemora is
Rav
>Menachem Azaryah M'Pano (Mamar HaNefesh 5:1). He states that Rabbi Akiva was
in
>prison because he taught Torah in violation of the gezera. When the Rashbi
saw
>that his rebbe refused to teach Torah in private to one ( i.e., Rashbi) who
>requested  it and was sitting at his feet this aroused the suspicion that
Rabbi
>Akiva's public act was only - chalilah - for showing off and was not sincere.
If
>such were so it was proper to hand Rabbi Akiva over to the government so that
he
>would not endanger anymore the masses who followed him,  because G-d doesn't
do
>miracles for deceit. Rabbi Akiva got the message and then taught him Torah
....

>The Ben Ish Chai also understand the gemora as showing that the Rashbi felt
>strongly that Rabbi Akiva was wrong and needed to be threatened.

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge RDE's effort in locating Aharonim
who discuss this passage and thank him for it.  I am especially
impressed by his ability to locate the discussion of Rema me-Pano.  But
I confess I do not understand it.

I remain perplexed by the threat to hand over R. Akiva to the
authorities, given that he was already in prison.  I mentioned this
problem last time, and RDE explained  in the name of Maharsha that even
someone in prison can be treated more harshly.  This is true, in theory.
 But if we follow Rashi's view that R. Akiva's incarceration was related
to his teaching Torah, as described in Berakhot, that Gemara indicates,
I think, that he was both imprisoned and sentenced to die for his limmud
Torah.  If he had already been sentenced to die (which is implied in our
Gemara as well: that only Rashbi was at risk),  and we know that the
form of execution was torturous, I find it hard to understand how things
could have been made worse.

Putting this aside, I also do not understand the second half of Rema
me-Pano's explanation, according to which  the purpose of handing R.
Akiva over would have been so as not to endanger the masses who followed
him, because God doesn't perform miracles for deceit.   It is not clear
to me how this would work, either practically or hashkafically.  The
issue is whether R. Akiva, halilah, was teaching in public only to show
off.  Leaving aside the question of how many wise people would risk
their lives to show off, how could his followers be endangered by R.
Akiva at this point?  One can safely assume that, imprisoned as he was,
his public teaching days were over.  Therefore, any follower who did try
to learn with him would presumably have to do so in private, where
sincerity would not be an issue.  And if a follower tried to teach
others in public, such a follower would presumably be judged by God on
the basis of his own sincerity, not that of his rebbe.

Hashkafically, too, I am perplexed.  Let us assume, for the sake of
argument, that R. Akiva held a class for his followers in prison and
was, halilah, not doing so li-shmah.  The students, one assumes, would
have been sincere.  Would they be judged by Hashem on the basis of their
sincerity or their rebbe's insincerity?  I would have assumed the
former, but Rema implies the latter.   More importantly, if the issue is
whether Hashem will perform miracles for R. Akiva or his followers, that
would seem to contradict  the principle of ein somekhin.  Rashbi seems
very clearly to be assuming a genuine risk, as does R. Akiva in the
Gemara in Berakhot.  Thus, no one seems to be expecting Hashem to rescue
them.  Why then should Rashbi feel that R. Akiva's suspected insincerity
could jeopardize the nisim necessary to save his talmidim?   I must say
that I find this explanation raises as many questions as it answers.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark 

In a message dated 5/10/99 2:43:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
C-Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

<< There indeed may be other qualifying factors in determining Gadlus as 
 in the case of R. Aharon Kotler who re-established the yeshiva system of 
 Europe on American soil.  W/o that event who knows where Torah Judaism 
 would be in America today.  OTOH you can argue that the Eis Laasos of 
 transplantation of Jewry from Europe to America post Holocaust would 
 have created the same situation and that the Yeshiva would have evolved 
 anyway.  I don't know. >>

This is a side point, but I wonder why you say this about R'Aharon, Ztz"l. 
Weren't Torah Vodaath, MTJ, Yeshivas R' Yitzchak Elchanan, and even Chofeitz 
Chaim already established by the time R' Aharon came to the states?

Jordan

--- Harry Maryles <C-Maryles@neiu.edu> wrote:
> The Gadol of today may be the Rish
> Galusa 
> of yesteryear.  

My understanding (and I'll admit that I did not study this historic
period in depth) is that the Resh Galuta was a political leader while
the "gadol" of the time was the head of the Yeshiva (Gaon).  Witness
the machloket between R. Saadia Gaon and the Resh Galuta.  

>There indeed may be other qualifying factors in determining
> Gadlus as 
> in the case of R. Aharon Kotler who re-established the yeshiva
> system of 
> Europe on American soil.  W/o that event who knows where Torah
> Judaism 
> would be in America today.  OTOH you can argue that the Eis Laasos
> of 
> transplantation of Jewry from Europe to America post Holocaust
> would 
> have created the same situation and that the Yeshiva would have
> evolved 
> anyway.  I don't know.

I read that the Lakewood Kollel started by R. Aharon Kotler was
actually a continuation of the program for advanced talmidim that R.
Soloveitchik started in the 30's in Boston.  When the Rav was
appointed to succeed his father in YU, the Boston program disbanded.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

I discussed this issue with Yossi Prager this Shabbat and have the
following additional points to add.  (Of course, all the credit goes
to him, all the blame to me.)  This also ties in with the "dinners"
issue discussed last week.

First, we should distinguish between (a) the types of activities
specifically prohibited by the Shulchan Arukh and (b) activities that
from a hashkafic perspective are inappropriate during Sefirah.

Second, if we think back to the period prior to the Crusades, only
weddings were prohibited during Sefirah.  The prohibition to cut hair
came later.  Moreover, until modern times the prohibition to cut hair
for 33 days was not that onerous; today, those who normally shave
find themselves mourning much more than their ancestors.  It is
therefore reasonable to presume (as I believe suggested by RYGB) that
the nihugim of Sefirah are not exactly the same as yud bet chodesh. 
Fortunately, I have not had occasion to learn the latter halachot in
depth; today, I glanced briefly at the halachot in the book "Mourning
in Halacha" and it is my impression that the halachot of yud bet
chodesh are much more onerous and imply a much greater level of
avelut than the halachot of sefirah (e.g., a bunch of friends can't
get together during yud bet chodesh, and many pasken that you can't
go a se'udat mitzvah of a siyum during yud bet chodesh).  In fact, it
is my impression (but I didn't check it out) that the poskim talk
about avelut in connection with the three weeks/nine days/shavuah
she'chal bo, not in connection with sefirah.

I also wonder why people are so eager to expand the avelut of
Sefirah.  The greatest expansion occurred in the time of the Crusades
because many Jews died during the month of Iyar.  (Parenthetically,
Dr. David Berger, a historian of the period, claims that the entire
Jewish population in Ashkenaz at the time was 20,000 and that only
5,000 died.  Query why we're emphasizing the Crusades so much and the
Holocaust so little.)  I would think that as time passes we would, if
anything, relax the prohibitions (cf. batla megilat ta'anit), not
expand them.



--- Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM> wrote:
> > Moshe Feldman writes:
> > 
> > >Excitement and simcha she'balev are
> > >two different things.  Perhaps baseball games are exciting for
> > some
> > >and bungee jumping is exciting for others.  No one ever
> prohibited
> > >bungee jumping during sefirah.
> > 
> > >Again, I differentiate between excitement and happiness. 
> Remember
> > >that in the time of Chazal, simchat m'reut with music was
> probably
> > >infrequent (weddings, probably not bar mitzvahs).
> > 
> > I believe the technical distinction between excitement and simhah
> > collapses when the person in question derives great enjoyment
> from
> > it.
> > For whatever reason (and I leave such analysis to sociologists
> and
> > psychologists), many people today "enjoy" shocks, thrills and
> > excitement.  A huge sector of the entertainment industry caters
> to
> > this
> > audience, from roller coasters to horror films, from shock radio
> to
> > Stephen King novels.  I believe that going to an amusement park
> is
> > entirely inconsistent with the nihugim associated with sefirah,
> and
> > I
> > think most authorities would agree.   Similarly, if a person
> finds
> > bungee jumping very enjoyable then (he should get professional
> > counselling :), but in any case) such an activity would also be
> > off-limits during Sefirah.
> > 
> 
> If you are willing to prohibit bungee jumping (or more
> realistically,
> amusement parks) then I might agree with you with regard to
> baseball
> games.  However, if you don't prohibit amusement parks because they
> cause fun & excitement, but not happiness (simcha), then I would
> categorize baseball games as permissible as well.
> . . . .
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

On Mon, 10 May 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> find themselves mourning much more than their ancestors.  It is
> therefore reasonable to presume (as I believe suggested by RYGB) that
> the nihugim of Sefirah are not exactly the same as yud bet chodesh.
> Fortunately, I have not had occasion to learn the latter halachot in
> depth; today, I glanced briefly at the halachot in the book "Mourning in
> Halacha" and it is my impression that the halachot of yud bet chodesh
> are much more onerous and imply a much greater level of avelut than the
> halachot of sefirah (e.g., a bunch of friends can't get together during
> yud bet chodesh, and many pasken that you can't go a se'udat mitzvah of
> a siyum during yud bet chodesh).  In fact, it is my impression (but I
> didn't check it out) that the poskim talk about avelut in connection
> with the three weeks/nine days/shavuah she'chal bo, not in connection
> with sefirah. 
> 

Of course, having advanced the idea, I agree :-).

However, I should note that I spoke to a talmid of R' Aharon Soloveitchik
overr Shabbos who said R' Aharon always stressed that the parameters of
Sefira must fit into one of the pre-existing categories of aveilus. I
asked this talmid why, then, is the aveilus of the Three Weeks more severe
than that of Sefira (i.e., l'nidon didan, no fundraising dinners). He
agreed that this required further analysis. I did hear shiurim from RYBS
on the topic of the gedorim of Aveilus Yeshana vs. Aveilus Chadasha, but
do not recall (this was, of course, 19 years ago) him specifically
addressing chillukim between Sefira and the Three Weeks. 

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 back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]