Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 132

Wednesday, February 21 2001

• Re: Rov by Bais Din, Shlichusayhu (Derech Analysis)
• Re: Vas izz ...
• Voss Iz Der Chilluk? #1: MC vol. 1 p. 101: Initial Summary
• Re: wedding on lail shivah asar b'Tammuz
• Luzicide
• Rabbeinu Tam and Metzius
• Re: Praying to angels/intermediaries
• Re: Mishpatim Remez
• Re: Rov by Bais Din, Shlichusayhu (Derech Analysis)
• Re: Hachono for Derech Analysis / Voss Iz Der Chilluk?
• Re: Rov by Bais Din, Shlichusayhu (Derech Analysis)
• RE: praying to angels
• Z'man Motsai Shabbos
• Re: Z'man Motsai Shabbos
• RE: Z'man Motsai Shabbos
• RE: Z'man Motsai Shabbos
• RE: Hachono for Derech Analysis / Voss Iz Der Chilluk?

At 10:34 AM 2/20/01 -0500, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

>Shlichusayhu (b'pashtus) is just a din when you need smuchim, Gittin
>88. Shlichusayhu is also not a real din in shlichus, but a din is serara
>(a B"D of non-smuchim lack authority - I think the Ch. Ran in Sanhedrin
>says this), so the whole chezkas shliach oseh shlichuso isn't relavant.

I looked again - now I believe ehr maint takkeh shelichus of HKB"H.


KT,
YGB

ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

"David Riceman [dtr]" wrote:
> I just skimmed the relevant tshuva in the Noda BeYhudah, and
> my impression is ...        The author of the tshuva, incidentally, was
> not RAbbi Landau but was his son (whose name, I presume was also
> Rabbi Landau).

Perhaps we should add this to RYGB's list: the Wissenschaft teretz, he
didn't say it, and the person who did say it really said something else.

DR

We queried:
The Sha'arei Yosher 4:9 queries in the case of 10 stores, 3 of which sell 
Neveila meat, another 3 of which sell Treifa meat, and 4 of which sell 
Kosher meat: There is a Rov for Issur, but for distinct reasons: Do we 
follow the majority of Issur as the Rov, or the plurality of Heter? The 
Poskim seem to be of the opinion that we definitely follow the majority 
l'Issur, not the plurality l'heter.
In terms of a Beis Din, when a majority of Dayanim pasken X, but for 
distinct reasons, the Remo CM 25 rules that we follow the majority, but the 
Noda b'Yehuda Tinyana CM 3 brings several sources that rule to follow the 
plurality that is of uniform reason for their opinion.

So, in the case of the stores, the Poskim are of uniform opinion: Follow 
the Majority l'Issur; in the case of the Dayanim, there is room for 
machlokes amongst the Poskim whether we follow the majority or the minority.

Why?

Voss Iz Der Chilluk?

Several wonderful responses came through.

RCPS himself gives two resolutions:

1. The Rov by the Dayanim must result in a Psak Din based on a prior 
resolution of Emes, rooted in the logic employed by the Dayanim. Since the 
logic is not shared, Emes is not resolved, and Psak Din cannot result. In 
the case of the stores, Emes is not an issue; issur vs. hetter is the 
issue, and there is no distinction in issur and hetter between various 
reasons for each category.

2. The well known R' Chaim in the Stencil on BK 27 states that by Dayanim 
aside from the din of "Follow the Rov" (Zil bsar Rubba or Kol d'Porish 
mei'Rubba Porish - see RCS there as to how this may apply to a Beis Din) 
there is a din of "Bittul b'Rov". "Follow the Rov" requires a simple tally 
of possibilities, and, therefore, applies to the case of the stores with 
the resultant issur. Bittul requires a commonality in the majority to 
nullify the minority. This is lacking when the underlying rationale of each 
member of the majority clashes with the other.

Let's try paraphrasing my original style:

An Analysis of Darchei HaLimud (Methodologies of Talmud Study) Centering on Rov

We may pose the following chakira: Is Rov a Birrur (clarification) or 
Hanhogo (a mode of behavior in the absence of clarification)

Now, the truth is that in Telshe, there were two derachim, that of Reb 
Chaim Rabinovitz (Reb Chaim Telzer) and that of Reb Yosef Leib Bloch & Reb 
Shimon Shkop. This chakira captures the hallmark of the former (Reb Chaim 
Telzer's) derech - Contingencies - but not the latter, which we'll explore 
later.

In the case of the Stores, Rov is an Hanhogo: We are not concerned with 
clarification, which may not be achievable anyway, and, as an Hanhogo, Rov 
need not take into account the reasons for an issur. But, in the case of a 
Beis Din, Rov must be a Birrur of Amittah shel Torah, and two disparate 
reasons cannot comprise that Birrur. (This is a R' Chaim Telzer recast of 
RCPS resolution #1).

Let us now go through how the other various darchei halimud would approach 
this important conundrum:

Brisker Derech: Intrinsic Categorization and Definition - There are two 
(tzvei) dinim in Rov. Zil bsar Rubba and Bittul b'Rov. By the case of the 
stores, only Zil bsar Rubba applies, and that requires no commonality; by 
the Beis Din, both dinim of Rov are operative, and Bittul b'Rov cannot 
apply where there is no commonality (This is a Brisker recast of RCPS 
resolution #2).

Poilisher Derech: Brilliant Novelty (pilpul) - (Remember the Chelkas 
Yo'av?): Rov cannot work by a Beis Din where the opinions of the majority 
are disparate because the principle of Chazaka Shaliach Oseh Shelichuso 
works by d'orysa only if their is no rei'usa: Here, the difference of 
opinion is a rei'usa in the Chazaka, and the Rov is barred from taking effect.

The Rogatchover's Derech: In the tea example I defined this Derech as a 
"Combination of the Two Previous Derachim" - here I would like to use the 
Rogatchover's proclivity for Maimonidean concepts and use his terms Nekudah 
(fused point) and Shetach (broad array). The case of the Stores need not 
result in a cohesive Nekudah: It is a statistical, open-ended Rov, and all 
possible factors that may weigh in the Rov may be brought to bear. A Beis 
Din, however, must, in its Psak, culminate in a Nekudah (which is why, in 
Halocho, unlike, l'havdil, the secular Supreme Court, no dissenting 
opinions are issued and a Dayan may not reveal his personal position). 
While the principle of Rubbo k'Kullo teaches us that a Nekudah can be 
forged on the basis of Rov, that is only if the underlying conceptual basis 
for a Rov exists. Here, the dissenting opinions bar that from occurirng 
(note similarity to the Brisker derech, but philosophical nomenclature.

Hungarian Derech: Extrinsic Resolution - The stores case concern Issurei 
Achila, which are metamtem lev va'nefesh. (Remember recent DY Tosafos on 
Behemtan shel Tzaddikim!). We must be machmir in what consists a Rov. 
Choshen Mishpat, or other Dayanus issues, are not as severe, and we can be 
more particular about constructing a Rov.

Reb Yosef Leib & Reb Shimon's Derech: Abstraction to an Essence - Rov can 
only be an Hanhogo (this a real R' Shimon), not a Birrur - a Majority is a 
statistical tool which tells you nothing of the reality at hand.The truth 
is, therefore, that by Dayanim, Rov should not work at all - except that 
the Torah decreed that the majority of Dayanim, activated by and acting 
upon the evidence of the eidus before them  (this is another real R' 
Shimon), shape halachic realities (this is a real RYLB). You cannot forge 
halachic realities if the underlying halachic understandings clash.

Sephardi Derech: Uncomplicated Grasp - The Sephardi would walk away from 
the argument that the six Ashkenazim were engaged in over Rov shaking his 
head in disbelief about how silly these Ashkenazim were - in the final 
analysis the Noda b'Yehuda allows that the Rov works by Dayanim as well, so 
your argument is irrelevant!

I will bl"n address some individual posts later.

[Many of which are folded into this post, so as to save digest space by having
only one header. -mi]

Please submit feedback as to the helpfulness and instructiveness of this 
venture!!!

- - -


At 09:14 AM 2/16/01 -0500, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
> From the Brisker point of view, this is easy because it was the subject
>of Reb Chaim's bar mitzvah derashah. According to RCS, neveilah and
>tereifah are manifestations of the same chalos issur...

Interesting, but not necessarily a true Brisker response (at his Bar 
Mtizvah you think he already had his derech pat? :-) )


At 10:49 AM 2/16/01 -0500, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
>If you learn like the Rashba that chad b'trei is batul because I say
>whatever piece I am eating is kosher then the chiluk is pashut. By the case
>of the meat, it makes no difference if 3 pieces are assur because of
>neveilah and 2 are assur cause of treifah-bottom line is when I pick up a
>piece of meat to eat is it assur or muttar. If rov pieces are assur I can't
>eat it.  Mah shein cain by the dayanim where rov works differently, so maybe
>one could say we follow the majority of ideas.

Similar to RCPS #2, I think.

- - -

At 09:54 PM 2/17/01 -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
>The question starts asking for categorization between one of two options.
>Not only does a derech define the means for reaching an answer, it also
>defines what one considers an inyan, and what questions one asks.

I actually heard this principle, in one of the few shiurim I attended, from 
one of R' Shimon's other talmidim, RYZ Gustman - he stressed that how one 
aske the question ('ha'amodas ha'saek") is a critical component of the 
resolution. More on this another time bl"n.

...
>I think the fundamental difference is a step preceding: Briskers do not
>believe there is a concept of something that prcedes halachah. We can't
>understand HKBH's mind -- explaining halachah is as futile as trying to
>explain the Shoah.

The alleged statement (I do not believe it is accurate!) attributed to R' 
Chaim is:

We ask what (voss). R' Shimon asks why (fahr voss) - and that (is) [leads 
to] Kefirah.

>RYBS's derech is, to my mind, a synthesis of Brisk's exploration of
>chakiros and definitions of categories with Telz's drive to find the
>essential meaning of the din. By assuming a philosophy of Kirkegaardian
>dialectic, he can provide philosophical explanation for Brisker chakiros.
>Tzvei dinim emerge from the tension of the dialectic.

Be dan l'kaf zechus!! Not Kirkergaard, but Tanya. Brisk + Tanya = RYBS. 
Tanya was a heavy influence in Telshe as well. But there they accepted it. 
RYBS fought against it.

>I wonder if the fact that meat enters shechitah with a chezkar issur
>is relevent. This would avoid the entire question to begin with. I'm
>not sure which derech leans toward that kind of avoidance. Maybe
>one could say it's a Poilsher out-of-the-blue teirutz.

I used chazoko for the Poilish derech as well, but your mahalach resembles 
R' Gil's.

>Second, I can see arguing that there are three distinct concepts that
>use rov...
>If so, one can't ask a question between the 2nd and third categories --
>they're different kinds of rov. (Brisk).
>Third, perhaps we can use a chakirah made by R' Akiva Eiger (shu"t 136)
>between birur of the metzi'us, and birur of the din...

My summary includes similar points to your mahalchim.

- - -

At 09:05 AM 2/16/01 +0200, S. Goldstein wrote:
>by issur, if it is not mutar, we cannot eat it. therefore opposite
>reasons combine to say don't eat.
>by din, we need to know who is right. different reasons, where each reason
>is suspect of being false, cannot convince us that one side is correct.

Similar to RCPS #1.

- - -

At 03:54 AM 2/16/01 +0000, Sholem Berger wrote:
>Der chilluk iz -- whether different issurim can be summed. In the case of
>meat, the relevant issurim all share one property...
>     the issurim found by different dayanim are not necessarily summable.
>Why are they not summable? Either because the reasons for a dayan's decision
>are more multi-dimensional than the meat-related issurim, or because the
>shivim panim-betorah are more likely to be reflected in manifold fashion in
>human differences of opinion.

Similar, again, to RCPS #1.

- - -

At 12:58 PM 2/19/01 +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
>Meat is a special case. Meat is a case of "ischazek issura;"...
>The case in the Noda b'Yehuda is a completely different kind of
>case....
>Thus if the numbers had been 3 mechayev for nezek, 3 mechayev
>for hotzaos and 4 poteir, Shimon, because he has a chazaka in the
>money (which is punkt fakert the chazaka of the meat) can be
>metzareif the 4 who are poteir in both cases with the 3 who are
>poteir in the nezek case, and the 4 who are poteir in both cases
>with the 3 who are poteir in the expenses, and come out patur from
>paying at all.

>> What Derech have you used to resolve that Chilluk?

>Given how long I went on, this must be pilpul :-)

Not bad. Employing Chazoko makes it somewhat more Poilishe, but with 
Litvshe rigorous analysis :-) .

- - -

At 08:13 PM 2/15/01 -0500, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
>1) R' Shimon/Telz - Abstract principle - rov only works if it leads to a...
>2) Brisk - there are 2 dinim in rov.  Rov can define a cheftza (e.g. rubo...
>3) Hungarian or Polish (I made the attempt, but I profess ignorance at these...
>4) Heichi timtza - the case of B"D (acc. to the shita that we follow rov) is...
>5) R' Naftali Trop (or R" Chaim Telzer, as described by YGB) - yesh lachkor...

Much of what you wrote, is in my summary. Yasher koach.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Michael Feldstein asks, "This year Shiva Asar B'tammuz is on a Sunday. 
Someone I know wants to plan a simcha the Saturday night before the
Sunday fast.  Technically it's the seventeenth of Tammuz, but the fast
doesn't start until the morning.  Is there any halachic problem with a
simcha on saturday night?  Would it be any different if Shabbos was
docheh the fast and the seventeenth of Tammuz actually fell on Shabbos?"

        This issue was discussed at length some fifty years ago (Shiva
Asar b"Tammuz was on Sunday in 1950 and 1954), and was a machlokes
between the poskim. RMF permitted it "l'tzorech" (OC I, Siman 168),
arguing that bain ham'tzarim does not begin until the fast, though when
it is nidcheh, it begins on Shabbos and weddings are prohibited on
Saturday night.  Others disagreed (my father among them).  One argument,
by Rabbi Chayim Yehuda Leib Sachs (it appeared either in the HaPardes or
HaMaor Torah journal, c. 1960--the author was the father-in-law of Rav
Chaim Stein, Telzer Rosh Yeshiva, ylc"t), is that by right the other
three churban fasts should have the same stringencies as Tisha b'Av,
since the times could not be construed as "ain shalom v'ain shmad,"
especially in view of the situation at that time in the Soviet Union.

        The basis of the disagreement with the psak of RMF is that while
he establishes that the din of ta'anis (not just issur achila0 does not
begin until morning, he assumes without proof that the onset of bain
ham'tzarim is linked to ta'anis.

        (Parenthetically, he notes that one cannot investigate what
established minhag was, "dib'davar shelo matzuy lo shayach minhag," which
is interesting, since it occurs almost exactly as often as shmitta,
albeit without the regularity. Indeed, the year in which the question was
raised, 1950, was the first time in 20 years that it occurred.)

Elazar M. Teitz

While I no longer have their response, I asked this question to Rabbi M.
Kornfeld's Kollel Iyun Hadaf.  Their answer was that a.  these were
apparently nonJews and hence the prohibition against suicide may not
apply (NB I think this is wrong) and b) that the metaphysical suicide of
leaving the city is not osur.  I would bring a rayah from the story of
ashkavta deRebi,  where tefila for someone to die is not osur.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Gil Student wrote: <There are definitely metzius problems with Rabbeinu
Tam's shitah. There are also metzius problems with the Gra's shitah. I
believe RYM Tukiczinsky (sp?) wrote about these problems and proposed
solutions. R. Mordechai Willig discusses these and other solutions to
the metzius problems in his Am Mordechai on maseches berachos.>

Astronomically, there are no problems with the Gra's shita, as far as I
know. It works out well with the g'moros and it is almost exact regarding
the appearance of three stars -- astronomically, not according to current
sighting conditions in New York or Yerushalayim which are dramatically
impacted by air pollution.

I would be interested to hear what problems R. Mordechai has found with
the Gra'. Could you please elucidate?

Disclaimer: I am not arguing halakhically about how we should pasken. I
am just saying that the Geonim, which is the Gra', and the Rambam (when
understood in the Mishne Torah vs. the Perush haMishnayos), fit in almost
exactly with what metzius was when the skies were clear.

I defer to R. David on this, but he may have covered his eyes with
tzitzis.

Seth Mandel

> I've always reconciled the machnesei rachamim(in my own mind) by thinking
> that they are part of HKBH "process". I'm not happy with this now and
> I'm wondering if anyone can share an insight on how to reconcile this
> tfila with this Rambam.

the same logic would apply to Shalom aleichem. There is a machlokes in 
minhagim over whether to recite it or not because of the seemingly 
anthropomorphic references.

                        Steve Brizel
                         Zeliglaw@aol.com

Dr Aryeh Frimer wrote:
> to the best of my knowledge, Yerushalyim in all of Tanach is spelled
> Chaser "Yerushalem" - without a second yud!

Common error. There are two exceptions listed in Mandelkern, where the
second yod is present. One is Esther 2:7. (Sorry I don't have the other
accessible; I'm on the road and won't be home for a few days.)

Akiva Miller

At 10:34 AM 2/20/01 -0500, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
>> Shlichusayhu (b'pashtus) is just a din when you need smuchim, Gittin
>> 88. Shlichusayhu is also not a real din in shlichus, but a din is serara
>> (a B"D of non-smuchim lack authority - I think the Ch. Ran in Sanhedrin
>> says this), so the whole chezkas shliach oseh shlichuso isn't relavant.

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
> I looked again - now I believe ehr maint takkeh shelichus of HKB"H.

How do you explain the line, "And also in a situation where if the shelichus
is not done it will be a michshul to the sender we always rely that he will
do his shelichus and this is not because of aidus". He is obviously
referring to the person asking the question as the sender.

Daniel Eidensohn

R' YGBechhofer wrote:
> The moreh horo'oh is a shali'ach to pasken halocho...

R' Micha Berger asked:
> Whose sheliach? HKBH's, Beis Din's, or klal Yisrael's? IOW, who "owns"
> the right to pasken?

RYGB answered:
> To be honest, I first thought HKB"H, but then I realized he is probably
> referring to the Gemoro at the beginning of Sanhedrin about poskim now
> fulfilling the role of "shelichusyhu d'kama'ei ka'avdinan".

It seems to me that the gemara's comments would refer to the poskim of
that day, who still had "real" semicha. It would not refer to today's
poskim, who have no authority beyond that given to them by their
constituencies.

Akiva Miller

I don't find the concept of shelucho shel HKBH overly appealing. (Not
that the Torah need appeal to my personal aesthetic; I just mean that
I find the idea improbable.)

There is too much Torah written on the partnership between Hashem and
man in the creation of TSBP that would now have to be dismissed. You're
demoting one of the partners to messenger boy.

Also, how does one understand "lo bashamayim hi"? If Hashem relinquished
ownership, how can He appoint shelichim?

From R' Ezra Bick's d'var Torah for this week:
: 2) There is yet another way of explaining the role of the judge: To coin a
: phrase from the world of school law: "In locus Deis" - Man sits in judgment
: not as an emulator of the Divine, rather as His agent (see BT Nedarim 35b
: in re the Kohanim). Instead of trying to "follow" God, the judge is serving
: as His earthly arbiter of justice; hence the twofold meaning of Elohim as
: both "God" and "Court" (e.g. Shemot 21:6). The verses surrounding "Distance
: yourself from a false matter..." address this aspect of judgeship.

I'm offering this quote because it shows that a dayan is a sheliach
of HKBH, despite my misgivings. Perhaps this is a difference between
dayanim and poskim.

As an aside: is the expression "Elohim" limited to Jewish judges? I'm
under the impression the leaders of b'nei Cheis were Elohim. RSRH
presents this idea in the reverse -- the divine meaning of E-lohim
derives from the secular meaning of legislative judge. Not the other
way around.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Joelirich@AOL.COM:
> I've always reconciled the machnesei rachamim(in my own mind) by thinking
> that they are part of HKBH "process". I'm not happy with this now and
> I'm wondering if anyone can share an insight on how to reconcile this
> tfila with this Rambam.

I gave an apology for this a while back.

Consider this:

I am addressing 20,000 people at Madison Square Garden (MSG) for the Daf
Yomi, plus thousands more world wide via satellite.

Do I address the crowd thusly?
"Dear Microphone, sound system, satellite, etc. and all the other
electronic conveyors or my message"

OR

Do I ignore the intermediaries and state clearly:

Point? The Rambam is telling us to direct our prayers to the target
audience (i.e. HKBH) and NOT to the intermediaries (angels)

Machinisei Rachamim might just be a simple request bakasha that the
intermediaries do their job well.

So back to MSG: after addressing the audience - at the end when credits
are given - I then acknowledge the sound system and the satellite
hook-up

That is why machnisei rachimim DAVKA precedes Maran Divishmayo LACH
Mischaneinan (that last k'neitch is from R. Shimon Schwab ZTL)

The machnisei rachamim is just a nod in the direction of the sound
system, not a true tefillah per se. 

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe 

[Moved from an Areivim discussion about when one should reconsider a
chumrah that alienates one from the kahal. The problem is that not all
"chumros" are technically chumros... -mi]

From: "Akiva Atwood" <atwood@netvision.net.il>
> Sof Shabbos L'Rabbeinu Tam -- some hold it like your explaination above, but
> there are others who hold it as Ikkar HaDin, NOT as a chumra.

For those who are somech on RT l'kula, wrt to davening mincha, it
would seem inconsistent not to also be machmir like RT.

Another point: Considering how severe chilul Shabbos and that the
z'man RT is at most only 30 minutes later than the earliest z'man that
anyone relies upon, I find it difficult to understand why, in the
absence of a tsorech godol,  _everyone_ does not follow RT l'chumra
wrt to motsai Shabbos.

(An additional point is how great the inyan of tosfos Shabbos is but
that is ancillary to the above)

- Noach

In a message dated Wed, 21 Feb 2001 5:51:16am EST, "Noah S. Rothstein"
<noahrothstein@mindspring.com> writes:
> Another point: Considering how severe chilul Shabbos and that the
> z'man RT is at most only 30 minutes later than the earliest z'man that
> anyone relies upon, I find it difficult to understand why, in the
> absence of a tsorech godol,  _everyone_ does not follow RT l'chumra
> wrt to motsai Shabbos.

True perhaps but there are quite a few "severe" issues in halacha, does
one always take the most chamur position articulated in the halachik
corpus?

KT
Joel

From: Noah S. Rothstein [mailto:noahrothstein@mindspring.com]
> Another point: Considering how severe chilul Shabbos and that the
> z'man RT is at most only 30 minutes later than the earliest z'man that
> anyone relies upon, I find it difficult to understand why, in the
> absence of a tsorech godol,  _everyone_ does not follow RT l'chumra
> wrt to motsai Shabbos.

Because the clear psak is against RT.  I heard shiurim on this from Rabbi
Dr. Shlomo Sternberg (at Harvard) a decade ago.  He proved that RT had a
geocentric view of the universe (based on his lashon)-- the idea that the
sun goes through a second opening in shamyamim after shkiyah rishonah
assumes that the sun circles the earth.  Moreover, my understanding is that
the geonim (i.e., all psak prior to RT) held like the "shittas haGra."  RT
came up with his chiddush based on an attempt to reconcile a stirah between
two gemaras; R. Sternberg analyzed these gemaras and showed how there was no
stirah (I think he was citing rishonim; it's been some time since I heard
his shiurim).  [Part of the issue may have been the difference between times
in Northern France as compared to Bavel; I'm a little hazy on this.]

Separate issue: whether to be machmir when rov klal yisrael is mekil.  I
don't believe this is necessary.  See my postings WRT to Rav Michael
Rosensweig's view of elu v'elu.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On 21 Feb 2001, at 11:49, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> [Part of the issue may have been the difference between times
> in Northern France as compared to Bavel; I'm a little hazy on this.]

AIUI, RT's shita is based upon the amount of time it takes 
darkness to descend where he lived - Northern France - which 
takes a particularly long time to get dark. I also understood that 72 
minutes was intended for Tishrei and Nissan - that the number of 
minutes is more in the summer and less in the winter. 

IIRC there is also a tshuva of R. Moshe Feinstein which says that 
based on RT's criteria, 42 minutes is sufficient in New York, and 
that's why 42 minutes is the commonly accepted shiur there. 

But this is all just what I remember hearing, and I have always 
found the tosfosin in the first perek of Rosh HaShanna to be quite 
daunting....

> Separate issue: whether to be machmir when rov klal yisrael is mekil. 

In Yerushalayim, those who keep RT zman are very much in the 
minority. Most of the people we know who do it are seminary girls 
who are following their father's minhag - many of them without 
having asked a shaila as to whether it's relevant in Eretz Yisrael 
(as long as it doesn't affect others, I don't think there's any harm in 
being machmir). 

-- Carl

mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

Micha Berger:
>: His answer. The moreh horo'oh is a shali'ach to pasken halocho...

> Whose sheliach? HKBH's, Beis Din's, or klal Yisrael's? IOW, who "owns"
> the right to pasken? ...

Before Churban Bayis it was the role of the 70 - see my post re: Avos and
the paradigm shift about 3 years ago.  Moshe Kibeil Torah miSiani included
the right and the obligation to pasken.(And as my early post last week
notes: the reticence to take on this obligation is what triggered kaffu
aleihn har kigigis) 

AIUI this 70 included Moshe oleh al gabeihem, that also included shoftim
such as Shmuel etc.

Inferior courts during the pre-churban are rooted in Parshiyos Yisro and
Shoftim  

After Churban Bayis we needed a new rationale.  The current authority stems
from our role as successors to that last Sanhedrin, and this is where it
gets fuzzy.

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe

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


[ 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         ]