Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 324

Tuesday, January 25 2000

• Re: Re[2]: Mendelsohn
• Re: Torah hi, was: Histaklus BaNashim
• Burying the Dead ASAP (was Re:Mendelsohn)
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• mechitzot
• Re: Mendelssohn and the singular destiny of the Jewish people
• Re: Re[2]: Yissachr/Zevulun
• Re[2]: Pilegesh
• apology
• Re: mechitzot
• Re[2]: Histaklus BaNashim
• Re: Mendelsohn
• Re[2]: Mendelsohn
• Re: mechitzot
• Re: Chalav Yisrael
• Re: Avodah V4 #323
• Re: R. Akiva Eiger
• Re: R. Akiva Eiger
• Personal frustration
• Mendelssohn
• Yissachar/Zevulun
• Re: Chalav Yisrael
• Re: Avodah V4 #323

On 25 Jan 00, at 13:19, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Is there a source that burying the dead immediately is d'oraisso?
> 
> EG, how many communities still bury on YT sheini shel golus?

Yerushalayim does :-) 

BTW - they also bury here at night. Levayos start as late as 1:00 
A.M. R"L.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 25 Jan 00, at 12:22, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> The classic litmus test the glass mechitza, if SOCIAL separation is require so 
> that no kalus rosh is commited by socializing and mingling then galss is ok. If 
> however men would be over lo sossuro by merely wactching women from a distance 
> w/o a chance of contact, then a glass mechitzo is possul.

I've been arguing with someone about this in private 
correspondence, and he made the statement that R. Moshe was 
matir a glass mechitza. I just looked in the Igros, and it seems that 
what Rav Moshe was matir (OH 1:43) was a mechitza of 18 tfochim 
(see OH 1:41) whose top third was glass. In fact, Rav Moshe says 
that it is better that the men should not see the women at all (at 
least for davening - see OH 1:42), although he is matir (apparently) 
to rely on shittos that let you read kriyas shma in front of a woman 
with her hair uncovered (OH 1:43). And he suggests using one way 
glass so that the women can see the men and not vice versa (OH 
1:43) if the shul insists on using glass.

OTOH with respect to chasonas he says "mesupkani" (OH 1:41) 
whether a mechitza is required, and he goes on to base his sofek 
on the Korban Pesach, where the chaburos were mixed, but that 
may have been a function of the prohibition of having chaborus 
solely of women because of kalus rosh. The tshuva was written in 
Cheshvan 5712 (1951).

If anyone has further tshuvos, please post. I find it hard to believe 
that the whole idea of mechitzos at a wedding is a recent chidush 
(as has been claimed to me in private correspondence).

BTW in OH 1:43 Rav Moshe says quite clearly that a married 
woman going with her hair uncovered is an issur d'oraysa, although 
he is melamed zchus that under some circumstances it may not 
be erva for purposes of saying Shma and divrei Torah.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 25 Jan 00, at 13:00, Tobrr111@aol.com wrote:

 One example was that he called for not burying the dead for a 
> few days because non-Jews objected to it and felt that maybe the individual 
> was still alive. He argued this way although if im not mistaken it is a 
> chiyuv deoraisa to bury the dead immediately. 

Lo solin nivloso al ha'etz?

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

In message , richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes
>the Gemoro says in the good old days when people had the proper intentions yibum
>was preferred now that we have no so pure intenstion chalitzo is preferred.
>

Actually, to be more accurate, the Ashkenazi rishonim (eg Rashi) (and
hence the psak for Ashkenazim) is as you have cited above, Sephardim
differed and yibbum was practiced in Sephardi countries, from what i
have read, relatively frequently.

>KT,
>RW 
>

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

In a conversation I had with the Av Bet Din of the Chicago Rabbinical
Council who was and still is the Av Bet Din of the RCA, Rav Gedalyiah Dov
Schwartz, in the context of setting up a mechitza for the Young Israel of
West Rogers Park, he stated that one could theoretically have a mechitza
made of dental floss or gossemer thread, if you will, so long as the strands
were the minimal distance apart  from one another in any direction (about 2
1/2 inches, I think, but it has been awhile.)  The strands would have to be
crisscrossed and not just parallel.   I had the conversation in the context
of being a delegated board member (our shul did not yet have a rabbi) at the
time our shul was moving into its own location after renting space inside
another shul.   Sorry, but I don't have sources.   Sof sof, we built wood
partitions, with the top 10 inches being a lattice-work.

//Avi

Unfortunately, you and RJJB have compelled me to go to primary sources.
They will be forthcoming. I am still, however, in a state of shock.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Shalom Carmy wrote:

> > 
> R. Bechoffer writes:
> 
> > I am not interested in taking more time to peruse Mendelssohn from the
> > source texts.
> 
> but not uninterested in wasting the time of hundreds of readers
> with comments and threats untainted by such persusal.
> 

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 1/25/00 5:17:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< aha!  what about some who have bits of both w/o being masters of both like 
 Rebbe?
 
 Rich Wolpoe
 
  >>
Did Rebbe spend any time amassing or managing his wealth?  If yes, what was 
his "heter" according to the Zeveulen school?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Tobrr111 wrote <<< I lived in Lakewood for many years, including the year
of R. Rakefet gave this speech. Neither I or anybody I spoke to ever
heard of such an individual. Nor is it even remotely possible that one
ever existed. >>>

R' Rich Wolpoe asked <<< Doesn't lo ro'inu eino rayo apply here? >>>

I would answer "Yes and no". R' Wolpoe's comment could apply to
Tobrr111's claim that no such person ever existed, but it would NOT apply
to Tobrr111's claim that "Neither I or anybody I spoke to ever heard of
such an individual."

It is important to keep in mind the actual words: <<< you cannot deny
that in Lakewood there is guy living with a pilegesh, bifnai am veaidah
[before the nation and the community]. He has two apartments, two
"wives", two sets of children. >>>

R' Rakeffet is not merely claiming that such a guy exists, but that
everyone knows about it. I have no idea whether or not the guy exists,
but Tobrr111 claims to have investigated and found no one who has heard
of such a situation. These two claims are directly at odds with each
other. One side or the other is wrong; it is either public knowledge, or
it is not. "Lo ra'inu" says that you can't draw conclusions based on a
lack of evidence, but the conclusions are not the point of dispute. The
point of dispute is whether or not there is indeed a lack of evidence.

(Another possibility is some kind of typographical error; R' Maryles'
initial notes indicate that it was not written by R' Rakeffet personally,
but that it <<< was distributed by a talmid of R. Rakkefet-Rothkoff based
on a sicha he gave to his talmidim in at Gruss. >>>)

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

My apologies to the list and to Rav Schwartz, but the e-mail that I just sent to
the list re: mechitzot  was intended to be a private message.

//Avi

I heard there were 2 dinim in Mechitzo <brisker style>

1) to make a spearation so as to prevent socializing during davening.  Kallus 
rosh is therefore ea function of mingling and "flirting" with members of 
opposite gender

2) Issues of Erva

Therfore if all the women in shul are dressed properly, #1 is the only salient 
issues and a mechitzah of glass is ok.

There then beomce 3 issues at a chasuno:

1) kallus rosh - any mixed gathering has that potential.  But a see thru 
mechitzo will suffice to prevent socializing

2) ervo- how can one recite shevo brochos in front of impoprely exposed Noshim?

3) hirhur - we MIGHT rely upon the fact that we are de-sensitized to improper 
dress in our society, but how about seeing women dance?  Does that introduce 
another dimension to conern ourselves.

AFAIK, these discussions are very useful in setting up the proper gedorim both 
in our minds and in practice.

And the dancing issue certainly explains how it is that chassonos differ from 
Yeshiva dinners.  So a yeshiva dinner - that has no dancing - it is ok to sit in
in a mixed setting . however, a Chasuon that has women dancing would need an 
extra geder.  Perhaps a takkono for MO's would be to sit together but to dance 
separately.

Rich wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: mechitzot 
Author:  Avram Sacks <Avram_Sacks@cch.com> at tcpgate
Date:    1/25/2000 5:45 PM


In a conversation I had with the Av Bet Din of the Chicago Rabbinical 
Council who was and still is the Av Bet Din of the RCA, Rav Gedalyiah Dov 
Schwartz, in the context of setting up a mechitza for the Young Israel of 
West Rogers Park, he stated that one could theoretically have a mechitza 
made of dental floss or gossemer thread, if you will, so long as the strands 
were the minimal distance apart  from one another in any direction (about 2 
1/2 inches, I think, but it has been awhile.)  The strands would have to be 
crisscrossed and not just parallel.   I had the conversation in the context 
of being a delegated board member (our shul did not yet have a rabbi) at the 
time our shul was moving into its own location after renting space inside 
another shul.   Sorry, but I don't have sources.   Sof sof, we built wood 
partitions, with the top 10 inches being a lattice-work.

//Avi

Rambam apparently does not make the distinction between then and now

And fwiw according to BRGS professors, Rambam had a different girso in said 
gemoro based upon an manuscript extant in Spain during his era.



Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Histaklus BaNashim 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    1/25/2000 5:34 PM


In message , richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes
>the Gemoro says in the good old days when people had the proper intentions yibu
m
>was preferred now that we have no so pure intenstion chalitzo is preferred. 
>

Actually, to be more accurate, the Ashkenazi rishonim (eg Rashi) (and 
hence the psak for Ashkenazim) is as you have cited above, Sephardim 
differed and yibbum was practiced in Sephardi countries, from what i 
have read, relatively frequently.

>KT,
>RW 
>

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

In a message dated 1/25/00 3:08:14 PM US Central Standard Time, 
Tobrr111@aol.com writes:

<< I think one of the complaints 
 against Mendelsohn was that he was overly concerned about eiva. Meaning, 
that 
 although eiva is a legitimate halachic concern, Mendelsohn was always 
worried 
 how Judaism would look in the eyes of his gentile friends even when there 
was 
 no danger involved. I saw many times in his writings where he writes about a 
 certain mitsvah "how will I explain this to my gentile friends?" >>

Why do we keep arguing about Mendelsohn? To me, his work is incomprehensible. 
He kept saying one thing while meaning the opposite. For example, he believed 
that Jewish was revealed by HaShem (or so he wrote), but that belief in 
relevation was unnecessary to Judaism, because belief in the supernatural is 
irrational, and all Judaic truth must ultimately be tied together by reason. 
Or something like that. What he really meant was that he wasn't about to 
embarrass himself by trying to justify revelation with reason. "Reason" meant 
a lot to him -- it was his connection to the secular world. He defined 
"reason," of course, in pedestrian pseudo-Kantian terms. In other words, if 
Mendelsohn couldn't understand it, it couldn't exist.

Nobody seriously thinks that way anymore. Mendelsohn is irrelevant today. Why 
do we have to worry about him?

David Finch

Should we ignore history?

Is there nothing left to learn from Korach's rebellion?

Rich Wolpoe
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Mendelsohn 

Nobody seriously thinks that way anymore. Mendelsohn is irrelevant today. Why 
do we have to worry about him?

David Finch

On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 06:12:42PM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: I heard there were 2 dinim in Mechitzo <brisker style>
...
: 2) Issues of Erva

Didn't the Aruch haShulchan matir davening in front of women who weren't
dressed halachically appropriately, but who weren't in violation of social
norms? I know he matirs davening in front of a married woman who didn't cover
her hair, I thought it was a general separation of the definition of ervah
into "mutar" vs "assur but not distracting".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 25-Jan-00: Shelishi, Yisro
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 104b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

In a message dated 1/25/00 5:42:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, David Finch  
writes:
<< Not if you like black fedoras. But what if you don't? If you skip the 
fedora, 
 or wear something snappy, like a dove-gray number with a dark blue suit, 
 you're suddenly imputed to have all sorts of dangerously liberal religious 
 ideas, i.e., that milk can be perfectly kosher without being Cholov Yisroel. 
>>
Please excuse my unfortunate ignorance, but being that Hazal were "gozer" on 
Chalav Akum, how is it that milk is perfectly kosher without being Chalav 
Yisrael? Isn't it "treif" m'dirabanan - no less than a chicken cheese 
sandwich?
 
 

In a message dated 1/25/00 5:42:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
owner-avodah@aishdas.org writes:

<< In a message dated 1/25/00 3:13:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Pawshas@aol.com 
 writes:
 
 > > not have his kids accepted in the  chadorim
 >  
 >  
 >  Chas veShalom! Deprive the children of Chinuch if the father is sinning? 
I 
 >  assume this was Shigra deLishna and nothing more...
 >  
 While in general your right see RaMoh Y"D 334:6
  >>
In general, I think the way it is done in certain communities is that the 
RAMA is used as a threat and they hope that they never have to make good on 
it. However, when push comes to shove I believe that sanctions are actually 
carried out against children as well. I believe RYBS in Halachic Man tells of 
interesting machloket between R. Chaim and other rabbanim on this issue.

In a message dated 1/25/00  Harry Maryles writes:
<<  By way of example, I'm told that all of
 R. Akiva Eiger's descendants are not religeous today,
 either. >>
I missed this the first time. I thought you just wrote that not all of Rav 
Akiva Eigers descendants are religious today, but you actually seem to be 
saying that all of them are not religious today. If that is what you meant 
you are very wrong. I do not know his entire family, but the Chasam sofer who 
was Rav Akiva Eigers son in law has dozens of religious descendants. In fact 
many prominent Rebbes and Rashei Yeshiva in the RW world are his descendants. 
These include the Matesdofor Rav, Rav Paler, Rav Shustal and many many 
others. 

Maybe someone can fill me in here.  IIRC, R. Akiva Eiger;s daughter was the
Chatam Sofer's second wife.  Did they have children together?  IIRC the
rabbinic line stems from his first marriage.

----- Original Message -----
From: <Tobrr111@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: R. Akiva Eiger


> In a message dated 1/25/00  Harry Maryles writes:
> <<  By way of example, I'm told that all of
>  R. Akiva Eiger's descendants are not religeous today,
>  either. >>
> I missed this the first time. I thought you just wrote that not all of Rav
> Akiva Eigers descendants are religious today, but you actually seem to be
> saying that all of them are not religious today. If that is what you meant
> you are very wrong. I do not know his entire family, but the Chasam sofer
who
> was Rav Akiva Eigers son in law has dozens of religious descendants. In
fact
> many prominent Rebbes and Rashei Yeshiva in the RW world are his
descendants.
> These include the Matesdofor Rav, Rav Paler, Rav Shustal and many many
> others.
>

It is difficult to write this posting without sounding preachy but it is
more an expression of my frustration than my criticizing the fine people
who participate in Avodah.  When I have brought up problems facing the
entire Orthodox community and which can only be solved through
cooperative effort almost no discussion follows.  However when any topic
which contrasts the modern Orthodox and the Charedim (or whatever other
terms are preferred) and one group  can attack the other is introduced,
the postings come fast and furious.
 Differences are real but the need for working together is critical.
The Orthodox media are not helpful and unfortunately the model projected
for gadlus is not Rav Shlomo Zalmen Aurbach ZTL who did not sign
manifestoes or publicly support political parties.
Sincerely,
Yosef Blau

RYZ saith regarding MM:

> 2) A more appropriate comperison would be to Oisoi Hoish.

I can see that, in that they both had lots of "followers" who
distorted their message.

R' Riskin holds that OhI was a frum Jew who said nothing that
was outside the acceptable range of Tannaitic opinions, based
on the work of David Flusser.  His legacy, however, was massively
twisted by those who claimed to follow him, who couldn't deal 
with the death of their messianic dream, into a totally alien
religion.

Acheir was just one member of an existing heretical trend, if
an extraordinarily prominent one, as a major Tanna, so he's
not comparable.

>3) There is a Lav Sheloi Lhapich Bizchusoi Shel Meisis.

Ah, but what evidence do you have that *he himself* was a mesit?

Everything that people have brought up so far has been shown to
be either false or distorted by later chroniclers: Graetz, EJ, R'
Nissan Mindel.  I know that Lubavitch, e.g., Dr. Mindel, anathematizes
MM because of what his "followers" did.


>There is a Kabala AFAIR from the Bal Shem tov, that Oisoi Hoish will have a
>Tikkun after "Nun Alofim Yoivlois" and MM even then not.

I find that implausible, if only because Mendelssohn didn't publish
his major works until after the Besh"t's petirah.  The Biur was put
together in the 1770s-early 1780s.

I suppose it's possible, in that OhI was in the distant past, while
Haskalah/Reform was an immediate threat to Yiddishkeit, hence the
more vehement reaction from *somebody*.


On the "middle-man" understanding of the burial fracas, I think
that's quite plausible.  He addressed his idea tentatively to R'
Jacob Emden, who was the major authority in Altona, where the 
question had come from, as in "Maybe this would work, but I doubt it."
R' Emden replied "Certainly not."  I suppose it might have been a
predecessor to historicist methodology: since we know that in the 
time of the Tannaim they put the body aside for a while, perhaps
we should do this again.  Remember, burial practice in the time 
of the Mishnah was to put the body in a cave until the flesh rotted,
perhaps a year later, and then to collect the bones and store them
in an ossuary.  He felt that since this was the early practice, it
was *more* correct than the current practice of burial in earth,
and thus perhaps it should be revived now that there is a reason
to do so, out of a desire not to commit burial alive (which was 
the government's reasoning for the 3-day waiting period).   I 
speculate that he was trying to leave a way out if his appeal to
the government hadn't worked, and the Altona Jews had been stuck
with a 3-day waiting period.  Seems to me like eiva was the motivation.

-JJB

> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:12:51 EST
> From: Yzkd@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Yissachr/Zevulun

<<Bloshon Chazal Torah Ugdulah Bmokom Echod.>>

	Not recommended as a derech hachaim,  since only a few individuals in
all the doros were able to achieve it.  Which leaves R' Rich with his
question unanswered.

Gershon

In a message dated 1/25/00 5:55:05 PM US Central Standard Time, 
Tobrr111@aol.com writes:

<< Please excuse my unfortunate ignorance, but being that Hazal were "gozer" 
on 
 Chalav Akum, how is it that milk is perfectly kosher without being Chalav 
 Yisrael? Isn't it "treif" m'dirabanan - no less than a chicken cheese 
 sandwich? >>

In the U.S., at least, what real risk exists today that milk sold 
commercially from a Gentile-owned dairy will come from a non-kosher animal? 
Do we really need a rabbi to get up at 4:00 a.m. to watch the bucket?

Milk from cows that is labelled "U.S.D.A. Milk" is going to be cow milk. None 
of the vessels in which the milk is stored will contain non-milchig residues, 
at least as I understand U.S.D.A. regulations. (That would include rennet 
from cheesemaking operations, as all vessels have to be scoured out 
scientifically after every use.) Since the cows are alive, the rabbis can't 
inspect the innards to detect hidden evidence of disease. Living cows that 
are obviously diseased cannot be used legally as a source of milk anyhow. In 
other words, only a dead cow can be glatt or non-glatt (i.e., regarding spots 
on the lungs, etc.).

Highly-observant Jews who immigrated to the rural Midwest in the early 1900s 
did not, to my knowledge, routinely instititue Cholov Yisroel cooperatives to 
assure themselves that their milk would be up-to-snuff. This was the case 
even though they got their milk the way everyone else did -- from the dairy 
farmer down the road. I imagine that if they knew the farmer, and knew that 
the farmer got his milk from cows, they felt that halacha was being observed. 
If am I incorrect, someone please let me know -- I'd be fascinated if the 
opposite were actually true.

You can take all of this with a big grain of salt, as there are few Jews on 
the planet with less detailed knowledge of kashruth than I. But this is my 
understanding.

David Finch

> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:05:49 EST
> From: Pawshas@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Community of Yissachars

<<Tobrr11@aol.com writes not have his kids accepted in the  chadorim>>

<<Chas veShalom! Deprive the children of Chinuch if the father is
sinning? I assume this was Shigra deLishna and nothing more...>>

	Sorry to burst your bubble but it is fairly common in some circles.

Gershon

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


[ 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         ]