Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 136

Monday, July 26 1999

• Mitzvos Ma'asiyos
• what Moses Mendelssohn believed and why
• Re: modern worship
• Re: Bal Tosif
• Re: Bal Tosif
• Re: unity
• Har Ha'Bayis, etc.
• Re: Bal Tosif
• V3 134
• Re: Mitzvos Ma'asiyos
• Re: Mitzvos Ma'asiyos
• Re: chassidic rock music
• daf yomi / Rome
• Marei Mekomos on Har ha'Bayis (HhB)
• Har haBayis
• Re: V3 134
• Mar-ei mekomos sought
• Abridged kinot
• education
• re: Abridged Kinot

R' Micha asked recently aobut mitzvos that particularly have impact on our
respective selves. I answered that we are socialized to Torah as the
ultimate "high". R' Micha countered that he was looking for some responses
on a practical level. Yet - re'eh zeh peleh! - no one actually gave a
practical response! The conversation actually then turned to what part of
the liturgy is uplifting and inspirational to respective individuals. But,
Rabbosai, davening is not a mitzva ma'asis!

In fact, I think there are very few of us who are turned on by Arba Minim,
Tefillin, Tzitzis, Shilu'ach Ha'Ken, Pidyon Petter Chamor (I'm naming at
random). I am told that some women are really inspired by Hadlokas Neiros
Shabbos v'Yom Tov, but when I had to do it in Yeshiva, it wasn't the high
point of my week.

In fact, I think we scions of the Misnagdic/Chassidic worlds find mitzvos
ma'asiyos a bit of a hassle (who enjoys shopping for Arba Minim and then
worrying about whether they will remain kosher?), and that is why we find
most of our sippuk in Torah or Tefilla.

YGB

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

It is commonly held, by people who have not read his works, that Moses
Mendelssohn claimed that Judaism has no dogmas.

If this means that Judaism has no distinctive normative beliefs, the
position is obviously false, and Mendelssohn did not hold it.

If it means that Judaism requires no beliefs that are problematic to human
reason, Mendelssohn indeed held that position. He strongly advocated the
argument, best known from the Kuzari, that any reasonable person familiar
with the tradition of mattan Torah would have to accept it because it is
extremely improbable that such a large number of people, witnessing a
public event, would be deluded.

And though kullanu hakhamim, kullanu nevonim and so forth, though many of
us know about all sorts of philosophical cavils against this argument, and
many of us know the most up to date epistemology of religion and are aware
of other ways of justifying traditional religious belief, I suspect that
this kind of thinking, for most of the people reading these words
(including this writer), carries a great of weight.

In a message dated 7/23/99 12:22:15 PM EST, Joelirich@aol.com writes:

> On a more serious note, having the aron rotate on its hinges would mean 
that 
>  in some cases the aron would be facing completely away from the seats . 
This 
>  brings back the old question of which way to face when mizrach and the 
aron 
>  differ. 
>  
Or a different question when one is in the air, isn't Derech Artzom downwards?

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

If it was received already I apologize for the duplicate. YZ

REC writes:
  
>1. The Ramban subsumes the issur of a navi being mechadesh mitzvos under bal 
>tosif when the source seems to be VaYikra 27 (see Meg 2b).  Someone 
suggested 
>to me that perhaps there are 2 issurim: a issur on the navi from Vayikra 27 
and an >issur on the tzibbur who acts on the chiddush mitzva from bal toseif. 
 I'm a bit >skeptical that that was Ramban's intention.
  
So does the Rambam in his Hakdama to Pirush Hamishnayos, and in Hil. Yesodei 
Hatorah 9:1, in addition to "Loi Bashomayim He", and see Lechem Mishneh 
(ibid),   also see MaHaRaTZ Chayous in his Divrei Nvi'im, Maamar Bal Tosif, 
that Bal Tosif is for Chochom, to be Mchdeish Bgeder Novee we learn from here 
(see Pri Mgodim Psicha Kllolis O"C Chelek 1 Ois 37, perhaps HLM"M is 
different, we once discussed this privately), in any case according to Rambam 
a Novee that is Mchadeish is a Novee Sheker, and Missosoi Bchenek.
  
>2. Ramban refers to Yerushalmi that the assembly of "85 zekeinim" were 
troubled >with the institution of megillah/Purim.  What is this assembly -  
Anshe Knesset >HaGedolah were 120?
  
See MaHaRaTz Chayos Megila 17b, (in addition there is question as to whether 
they were all in the same generation see Seder Hadoros by Rabi Shimon 
Hatzadik, even according to Mashmous Horambam that they were at the same 
time, is there any Hechrech that before returning to Eretz Yisroel he had 120 
in his B"D?).   
 
>Rashba, Ritva answer bec. takkanos derabbanan do not fall under bal tosif 
(see 
> Ra'avad/Rambam ch. 2 of Mamrim); Tos. answers that doing a mitzva twice is 
not >bal tosif.  In GraCH stencil he says Tos. did not give the simple answer 
of Rashba >bec. Tos. held tekiyot demeyushav is a minhag and not a takkanah.  
>Do we now acc. to R' Chaim have to justify all minhagim to avoid bal tosif?  
>Also, it seems to go against the Brisker hesber (I think it is found in the 
kuntras on >Mes. R"H and Sukkah) of saying a beracha on a minhag acc. to Tos. 
bec. the >cheftaza falls under lo tasur - if so, why is a minhag different 
than any takanah >derabbanan?
  
This idea is already brought in the Pri Mgodim in his Psicha Kllolis, (ibid  
Ois 38,) Vayin Shom, (note: this would only apply to something that is a ( 
positive) Minhag that is adding to a Mitzvah Doireisoh like twice Shofar).
  
>4. The Ra'avad in Hil Mamrim (2:9) writes that there is no issur for the 
rabbanan to >create an issur and formulate it as if it was a d'oraysa - after 
all, that is what an >asmachta is.  It seems to me that the Ra'avad has a 
very different understanding of >asmachta than a simple mnemonic, which is 
how the Ritva presents it (as quoted >by the Torah Temimah every other 
parsha).
  
See Encyclopedia Taalmudis Erech Asmachta and Pri Mgodim (ibid Ois 20).
  
Kol Tuv
  
Yitzchok Zirkind

C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> 4. The Ra'avad in Hil Mamrim (2:9) writes that there is no issur for the
> rabbanan to create an issur and formulate it as if it was a d'oraysa - after
> all, that is what an asmachta is.  It seems to me that the Ra'avad has a very
> different understanding of asmachta than a simple mnemonic, which is how the
> Ritva presents it (as quoted by the Torah Temimah every other parsha).
>

The Ra'avad strongly rejects the Rambam's statement that elevating a rabbinic law
to a doreissa one violates bal tosif. He  notes that according to the Rambam  the
tannaim who gave rabbinic laws an associated verse - and did not say it was only
an asmachta were violating bal tosif. We know that it is an asmachta only because
of the analysis of amoraim. The Ohr Someach states that this is a very strong
question and attempts to justify the Rambam's position. The Chinuch notes that
the majority of commentaries follow the Ra'avad and not the Rambam. Bottom line -
the Raavad holds that for purposes of preserving Torah it is permitted to declare
a rabbinic law to be doreissa. With the above in mind look at the letter that the
Chasam Sofer wrote to the Maharetz Chajes. (Darchei Hora'ah simon 6 page 269-270)
where he explains that since the Reform will not keep man made halacha it is
desirable to elevate the issur to call it doreissa. The Maharetz Chajes notes in
a footnote that this is a violation of the Rambam's position of Bal Tosif. One is
permitted to make all sorts of threatening statements to encourage compliance but
not shift a halacha into the doreissa category.
There was a rather controversial article in the Hebrew Yated recently which
distinguished between the halachic zealotry of the Ksav Sofer and Rav
Hildsenheimer as opposed to the emotional zealotry of the the Divrei Chaim and
others when dealing with the Reform movement. The distinction seems to be based
upon the differences between the Rambam and the Ra'avad.

                       Daniel Eidensohn

Eli Turkel wrote:

> My definition of eilu v'eilu is that whenever a major orthodox rabbi or
> group advocates an opinion that is not explicitly against the Shulchan Arukh
> the its advocates remain within orthodoxy.
> That does not mean that it is acceptable to everyone. To repeat myself
> debate and advocacy is important and essential within bounds. The
> tendency today in many groups is to respond to a major rabbi with whom
> one disagrees by stating that he is no longer an orthodox rabbi.

Having attempted to discuss this on a scholarly and dispassionate level and only
succeeding in eliciting your personal opinion about certain people and events that
you dislike -  I am bowing out. This is a legitimate issue of halacha and hashkofa
- but I see no benefit in simply retiterating ones personal likes or dislikes
without citing accepted proof texts or acknowledged rabbinic authorities about the
matter. Again - I share your concern with the damage that has been done by
disputes but I disagree with your approach to disputes and disputants.
Passionately held positions provides the energy for society and individuals. This
energy can be used creatively or destructively. On the other hand Rabbi Lamm has
lamented the difficulty of producing people who are passionate in their moderation
instead of being moderate in their passion.

                          Daniel Eidensohn

I received an e-mail note from one of the individuals associated with
Arutz-7 that rebuked me for my post on Avodah, to whit: 

The problem here is that you needlessly maligned in a direct way both
Arutz-7, as opposed to merely disagreeing with the issue involved. This
was done by phrases such as

>They also quoted some Rabbi I have never heard of 

and the following entire paragraph:

>(Another example of this Halachically dangerous form of nationalsim, not
>potential kares, as with Kenisa la'Mikdash, but Chiyuv Korban and perhaps
>Missa b'yedei Shomayim", is a new drive I just saw written up in our local
>A7 affiliate: "Israel News" to raise funds for the Third Temple. Hasn't
>anyone told these folks that me'ilah is a grave sin?
>

Both of the above do not merely state your halakhic position, but strongly
imply denigration of the bodies ( - and those that are "associated" with
them) that hold opposing positions.  I trust that there is no need to
elaborate on Avak L'H, and obviously you showed that you felt bad about
that.  Still missing, however, is the "b'rabim" aspect. 

Ad kan the divrei tochacha, that I am mekkabel.

So, let me say that the fact that I don't know a particular Rabbi, of
course, does not mean that he is not a talmid chacham, and accordingly I
did not mean to disparage one who quotes him. (I still refrain from
quoting him by name since i have no permission to do so). Similarly, I
should not have lumped together two groups (Arutz 7 with the Israel News
- for which, I was told, the former take no responsibility) just because
one took a stand that I find objectionable and that happens to have the
other's name on it.

The individual who contacted me was also concerned that asking Avodah
readers to comment on A-7 constitutes avak l"h, especially if I
strenuously object to their viewpoint and disparage it. I abviously feel
this is not accurate, and that Avodah is, if anything, the forum davka to
find someone to defend the A-7 position!

The individual in question then made several points that I disagree with,
among them the following concluding paragraphs:

THE MAIN POINT IS CLEARLY THIS:  There is a disagreement - some say yes,
some say no (?), some say preferably not.  Just because you cannot ignore
those who disagree with you doesn't give you the right to attack them
behind the back.  Stick to the issues, and not to the politics and
innuendos.  In general, if everyone would be more worried about **helping
and encouraging others in the good things that they do** and not so much
about perceived issurei kares and lifnei iver's (such as telling people
that it's mutar to cook on yontif with proper halakhic precautions) we
would be much better off.  There is always al mi lismokh, such that your
efforts are basically in vain.  I mean, if you convince someone to go by
this rav and not by that rav, what have you really accomplished?  But if
you expend the same efforts in encouraging the good things that people do
- ignoring, if you have to, the things with which you don't agree - there
is no end to the value that this has!  They will only get better, and get
others to follow in their footsteps, and be marbeh simcha and ahava for
Torah and Yisrael, and - and - the sky's the limit!

 	The same goes for the fund to build the third Temple.  First praise
their intentions.  Then ask how they're going about doing it.  If you find
that it needs correction, tell THEM - not everyone else.  They might even
listen! 

That's it for now.  Please include some of this to your list - including
the last 2 paragraphs verbatim, if you wish. 

Ad kan the quote. I believe the philosophy incorrect, as stated in my
previous posts, but it seems to be an eloquent expression of the A-7
position.

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 7/25/99 5:36:27 PM EST, yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il writes:

> where he explains that since the Reform will not keep man made halacha it is
>  desirable to elevate the issur to call it doreissa.

Al Derech (not exactly) The Rambam in Pirush Hamishnayos on Chulin WRT the 
different interpertations of the word Apikoress, also brought in Y"D Simon 2.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

 Avodah V3 #134
*********************
(NOTE THIS IS MY FIRST POSTING HERE AND I  AM NOT TOO SURE OF
YOUR SYSTEM. LET ME KNOW OF ALL ERRORS ETC)




From Shlomo Abeles SBA@blaze.net.au

Subject: The Kennedy Curse

> Not one posting on the CURSE?!  Does anyone have any sort of
..>authentic, reliable information on this famous Kennedy  curse story?

I have many years ago that it was uttered by the Shotzer Rebbe of London
Rabbi
Sholom Moscowitz. However lately there are stories that it was the
Satmar Rav zt'l
and a recent debate if it was the Lubavitcher Rebbe or Reb Aharon
Kotler!!!

Whatever - "Hizharu Begachloson"!

> If it is indeed true, then why didn't the Gadol (im) curse Hitler?

I"m sure they did. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't


>The Agudah wanted to have a fast day in the 1930s because of the
worsening
>>roclamation of the fast. The rav from Munkacz refused on the grounds
>that German Jewry deserved what was happening to them as the
overwhelming
>majority of German Jews were not religious. He was sure that Nazism
would
>not affect east European jewry since they were religious !!!

Could you state the source for this statement. It sounds like a terrible
slur on one of
the greatest Gaonim and Tzadikim of the last generation.

> I recall a few years ago there was an attempt to close the Hesder
yeshivot.
>Mafdal turned to help to the haredi parties in the knesset. They
refused on
>the grounds that Hesder yeshivot are not "real" yeshivot.

If it is true (and I wouldn't mind some proof), I have no doubt the
haredim were
following orders of the Gedolei Hador. And 'Tahkeh',  are Hesder
Yeshivos ''real''
yeshivos? How many Gedolei Yisroel have they produced in the decades of
their
existence?

>For example, I believe that Hashem's hand in the creation of the State
of Israel is
>clear and that a pareve position (such as that of Agudah) as to the
desirability of the
>State is almost a slap in the face to Hashem ..I also believe that all
Yeshiva  bo-
>churim--should do army service. I understand the charedi view on this,
but Idisagree.

And I believe that you don't really understand. After you have studied
the sefer
Vayoel Moshe (written by the late Satmar Rav)  you may begin ''to
understand'' the
charedi view.
_________________________________________________

In a message dated 7/25/99 3:08:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 In fact, I think we scions of the Misnagdic/Chassidic worlds find mitzvos
 ma'asiyos a bit of a hassle (who enjoys shopping for Arba Minim and then
 worrying about whether they will remain kosher?), and that is why we find
 most of our sippuk in Torah or Tefilla.
 
 YGB
  >>
And do we view this as a chisaron in ourselves? Is their more or less of a 
kiyum in a mitzvah we enjoy doing versus one we don't?

Kol Tuv,
Joel  Rich

On Sun, 25 Jul 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> And do we view this as a chisaron in ourselves? Is their more or less of

I think so. After all, "Gadol Talmud ha'mevi le'yedei ma'aseh."

> a kiyum in a mitzvah we enjoy doing versus one we don't? 

R' Dessler has a long discussion of this in vol. 5. Yes, there is more of
"lishma" in the mitzva enjoyed than in the mitzva not enjoyed.

YGB

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

Let's not forget that the kli kibul is as important as the music. 

Does anyone know what the Jewish community of Rome (for example) did
in the days of the Temple in terms of the dates of the calendar
since it would take months for them to find out when witnesses about
the new moon came.

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

The prohibitions on entering are discussed in Binyan Tzion (Aruch La'Ner) 
2, Mishpat Kohen (R' Kook) 96 (even according to the Ra'abad). In R'
Yitzchak Shilat's essay in Techumin on the topic he discusses the Me'iri
Shavu'os 16a that notes a minhag to go up and brings proofs that this
cannot be relied upon. R' Shilat's premise for building a Shul on HhB is
based on his assumption that one can know for certain what parts of the
HhB are not part of the original azara - even though, he notes, me'safek
one must assume that it is all HhB. He requires many safeguards in the
building - such as no exit from the Shul to the HhB, warning signs, etc.

(BTW, someone asked me if such warning signs existed at the times of the
Bais Ha'Mikdash. The answer is, of course, yes! I believe these have even
been found by archaeologists.)

Much discussion of the issue may be found in the Tzitz eliezer vol. 10
1:9. I erred in citing a cherem - it is simply a minhag dorei doros not to
enter the HhB, based on the severity of the issurim, even into areas that
are likely not part of the original HhB.

I am surprised that a movement that views itself as kafuf l'maruso shel R'
Kook ignores his powerful admonition against entering the HhB.

YGB

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

I personally heard R' YB Soloveitchik recommend using a pen to insert
k'vitilach into the kotel. (Of course, with the caveat that he didn't
understand the practice altogether.) The reason is that the Rav entertained
the possibility that k'dushas har habayis was until the wall -- ad v'ad
bichlal! Therefore, at some depth it would be assur to insert one's finger.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 26-Jul-99: Levi, Eikev
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 344:2-345:6
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 13a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari V 5-8

----- Original Message -----
From: SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>
> > I recall a few years ago there was an attempt to close the Hesder
> yeshivot.
> >Mafdal turned to help to the haredi parties in the knesset. They
> refused on
> >the grounds that Hesder yeshivot are not "real" yeshivot.
>
> If it is true (and I wouldn't mind some proof), I have no doubt the
> haredim were
> following orders of the Gedolei Hador. And 'Tahkeh',  are Hesder
> Yeshivos ''real''
> yeshivos? How many Gedolei Yisroel have they produced in the decades of
> their
> existence?
>
        Is that the only way to define the "trueness" of a yeshiva; by te
number of gedolim it produces?    First of all, I posit to you that hesder
yeshivot have produced many esteemed talmidei chachamim who will enter the
pantheon of  theTorah giants. That the chreidim will not recognize them as
such, is the chareidim's issue, not one for the hesder yeshivot.  Secondly,
what about the literally thousands of religiously committed Jews, Jews who
are punctilious on their obervances of Halacha, Jews who are entirely
possessed of yirat HaShem and Ahavat Yisrael; all products of the
Hesder/Mizrachi yeshivot?  Do yeshivit exist simply for the sake of
producing gedolim, or do we support them for the sakes of Torah and klal
Yisrael?

I seek mar-ei mekomos for the following:

1) obligation to say 90 amen-im daily.
2) 3 (or 4) kadeishim/kedushos (I know it's in Orach Chaim; I can't find it)

Please send your responses to me off-list.

Thanks.
Noach Witty
nwitty@ix.netcom.com

A common American custom on Tisha b'Av (at least when its on a weekday) is
for the shul to publicly recite an abridged list of kinot.

A list of abridged kinot that I hastily scrawled on the inside of my
Artscroll? was given over to me in the name of Rav Aharon Soloveitchik
shlit"a, but I cannot remember if that attribution is reliable.

Does anyone out there:
     (a) know of the minhag of abridging the list?,
     (b) if so, know of a reliable abridged list?
     (c) have any confirmation on the Rav Aharon attribution?

thanks
Josh Cypess


     Rav Aharon definitely gave such a list of kinos to my father for an NCSY
program around 25 years ago (Camp NCSY in California).   Having the honor myself
of doing NCSY Tisha Ba'av programs now for close to a decade I can tell you we
(Camp NCSY Sports & NCSY in Israel) still use the basic list, but permeations of
the list exist & I guess if you want the genuine thing you should call Rav
Aharon.

Moshe Luchins

JEWISH EDUCATION IN THE DIASPORA LOW, BUT IMPROVING
   According to figures from the World Jewish Congress, out of a total of
approximately one million and a half Jewish children worldwide living
outside of Israel, over 70 percent of them receive no Jewish education at
all, HA'ARETZ reported.  Some 230,000 Jewish children study in Jewish
schools outside Israel and another 200,000 receive some supplementary Jewish
education in Sunday schools or afternoon enrichment classes.
  These figures, however, represent a dramatic improvement compared to 10
years ago.  In the United States in the early nineties, there were about 400
Jewish schools, teaching some 150,000 pupils.  Today there are about 500
schools with 169,000 pupils, marking an increase of approximately 13 percent.

Rav Ze'ev Leff of Moshav Matityahu leads a special Tisha b'Av t'fila every
year in which he choses about ten kinot to be recited.   After each kina
he speaks (in English) for close to a half an hour  (also before the first 
kina he gives an introductory talk for close to an hour).   Exhibiting
incredible b'kiut, each talk is peppered with quotes from chazal, rishonim
and achronim, midrashim, stories about major rabbinical figures,
moving vignettes from the shoa and other national tragedies, and
mussar on some of the major failings of frum society (sinas chinam 
and intolerance, shidduchim abuses, etc.).   Each year the moshav's
shul is packed solid, with many  participants coming in buses 
from the American yeshivot in Yerushalayim (Mir, et al).  This year for
the first time the overflow was seated in the shul basement with Rav
Leff's talk carried by closed circuit videocast. This is the fourth year 
I have participated and I must say that this occasion
is one of the spiritual highpoints of my year.

Every year Rav Leff choses a basic theme and builds a carefully
architected shiur around the theme.   This year Rav Leff quoted
the sugya in massechet Shabbat dealing with the seven
aveirot for which the Beit Ha-Mikdash was destroyed, and then chose
seven kinot, each of which hints to one of these aveirot (bitul tashbar,
not giving kavod to talmidei chachamim, etc.).    Three additional kinot
(one on the shoa,  tzion halo tishali, and eli tzion) rounded out the list.

Last year, I believe, Rav Leff pointed out that he was going for quality
rather than quantity, but that anyone was free to be "mashlim" the
remaining kinot in his free time.

The only other similar framework for saying kinot in such a quality
way that I know of was the Tisha b'Av t'fila at Maimonides School with
the Rav zt"l in Boston.  I was there one summer and if I recall correctly
all (or almost all) of the kinot were said -- the Rav simply continued
until four or five o'clock in the late afternoon.

My question is: does anyone know of (and if so, could they briefly
describe) any other such frameworks for turning the kinot 
davening into a "seminar" of sorts for understanding
the nature of Tisha b'Av and Jewish mourning, Jewish response 
to suffering and national tragedy, the problem of evil, etc. ?

Kol tuv,
Shlomo Godick

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


[ 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         ]