Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 155

Tuesday, March 13 2001

• Re: hilchot aveilut
• Re: decline in knowledge of classical shitos
• RE: Rt, Mincha/Maariv
• Re: Tartei D'Asrei
• RE: Rt, Mincha/Maariv
• RE: Rabbinic authority
• RE: Bar Mitzva on Purim
• Re: Meg. thought
• Re: Meg. thought
• Re: Meg. thought
• Re: Yisurim in a Child
• Administrivia: Technical problems at AishDas.org
• Bet El
• Re: Voss Iz Der Chilluk #3, MC vol. 1 p. 74: Initial Summary
• Re: Eiver min Hachai
• Re: Hilchos Aveilus
• Re: Women, Tefillin, and Niddah
• Rashi on Rivkah's age
• Re: Dor Revi'i on va-yitein el Moshe k'khalato l'dabeir ito
• Re: Rabbinic authority
• RE: Tartei D'Asrei
• Re: Bet El
• RE: decline in knowledge of classical shitos
• hukas akum
• Re: Hilchos Aveilus
• RE: Tartei D'Asrei
• Re: hukas akum
• Parashas Zachor
• Re: Huqas Hagoyim (was: fishy story)

In a message dated Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:31:20am EST, Eli Turkel
<Eli.Turkel@kvab.be> writes:
> We had a discussion of this in my daf yomi group when learning elu
> melgachim. There are actually some authorities who discourage learning
> the gemara there. RYBS among others dismiss the reasons and advocate
> learning all gemaras and all halachot...

From a practical point of view I can tell you that having learned through
gesher hachayim and related texts about 5 years ago was extremely helpful
, especially in the days prior to avi mor vrabbis HK"M being niftar and
in the days immediately following. When I embarked on the study I did
have reservations along the lines of those noted but was encouraged to
do so by those more knowledgable than me.

KT
Joel

Mordechai wrote:
> I am noticing more and more, how many people, especially with certain 
> backgrounds, lack knowledge of certain classical shitos held by gedolei 
> olam.

I think that this is because yeshivos do not teach machshavah.  Instead, they 
substitute mussar.  For mussar, it is best to have a single derech on which one 
can base one's actions.  Multiple derachim that are not relevant lema'aseh only 
confuse the message.

Add to this that modern mussar is generally based on the Michtav Me'Eliyahu 
which was highly influenced by kabbalah and chassidus.

Gil Student
     

Carl Sherer [mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il]:
> 2. Isn't it always the case that if you are anus and don't daven 
> Mincha, you can follow RT and daven even more after shkiya so 
> long as you wait at least 72 for Maariv?

Point 2
According to the Gra NO WAY!  
AIUI the Gra holds after Shkiah, better to daven two maariv Amidos!
iirc the MB paskens this way, too - exactly where I'm not sure.

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe

In a message dated Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:32:07am EST, Gil.Student@citicorp.com
writes:
> I can't speak for RSZA, but there are a number of issues here. First,
> it is possible to accept Shabbos without davening. So, tosefes Shabbos
> is not an issue with davening early. Davening shemoneh esreih after
> shekiah is certainly mutar. The only question is Shema and its berachos....

> The easiest way to avoid all of the above issues is simply to daven
> ma'ariv after tseis. I know that both YU's and Chaim Berlin's battei
> medrash do that.

So Lchatchila it would seem that even balabatim who go to a "normal"
mincha minyan just before shkia should go home and come back for the post
tzeit minyan if their community has one. I know someone s=who tries to
do this, but this seems to be a miut dmiut. Any idea why?

KT
Joel

R' Rich Wolpoe wrote <<< Piskeiy MB "sham" sk 3 ... Bedi'avad and bish'as
hadchak gadol 13.5 minutes after Shkiah >>>

R' Carl Sherer asked <<< Could it be that 13.5 minutes after shkiya was
specific to Radin? >>>

Please note that 13.5 minutes corresponds to 3/4 of a mil -- i.e.,
Bein Hashmashos -- if a mil is 18 minutes long.

Akiva Miller

C1A1Brown@aol.com:
> See Collected Writings of R'Hirsch vol 5 for his criticism of Graetz,
> who asserted essentially the same idea - that pre-churban Sanhedrin
> was a centralized authority sitting in lishkas hagazis (makom mikdash)
> and post churban RYB"Z had to decentralize that authority. R' Hirsch
> rejects the notion of RYB"Z being mechadesh a new locus of power.

So how Does RSRH hold re: what RYBZ did and our current rabbinic power?

(FWIW, it is likely that Professor Agus agreed wtih Graetz on this point;
I just never heard this point was controversial)

Shalom
Rich wolpoe

Carl Sherer:
> "6. I saw brought down that if a boy becomes Bar Mitzva on Shabbos he
> has to read the Megilla on Shabbos. Why is this not a Shema Yaaveerenu
> problem? I guess because there's no choice, since the alternative would
> be to mevatel the mitzva altogether.  <snip>

Shema yaavirenu is a Klal problem not a Prat problem. The gzeira in
this one case is really not Necessarily applicable - and although lo
plug COULD be applied, it does not HAVE to be applied.

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe

In a message dated 3/11/01 8:43:03pm EST, C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:
> So the meg, is not just telling us history, but the record of malchei paras 
> u'madai is a 'matir' to be koveia the whole Y"T.

While this is Lichora Pshat in Bavli, it is more Mfurosh in the Yerushalmi 
Megila 1:5.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

> While this is Lichora Pshat in Bavli, it is more Mfurosh in the
> Yerushalmi Megila 1:5.

It also fits with the gemara on daf 11 R' Yochanan pasach leih pischa
l'hai parshisa m'hacha...v'rau kol amei ha'aretz ki shem Hashem nikra
alecha...aimasai- b'yimei mordechai v'esther. IOW: part of the geder of
the nes is recognition by the umos, hence the significance of its being
recorded in the history of Paras U'Madai.

In a message dated 3/12/01 4:12:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, C1A1Brown writes:
> IOW: part of the geder of the nes is recognition by the umos, hence the 
> significance of its being recorded in the history of Paras U'Madai.

Al Pesach Beisoi Mibachutz!

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

> For those who do not believe that there is such a thing as mikreh, which seems
> to be the case for chazal, the answer they would probably give, as painful as 
> it is, is what the gemara in Shabbos 32a (and parallels) says -- that children
> die from the sins of parents.  

As an additional note, more important than the esoteric calculus of
sechar ve'onesh is its practical use. The concept outlined above is
something that I think about frequently and use to motivate me to stay
away from aveiros. At the moments when my yetzer is strongest, I think
about what an aveirah might do to my children and use that thought to
stop me from sinning.

Gil Student

We exceeded a disk quota last night. It seems that the amount of space we
were physically set up for was less than the space we were paying for.
Our virtual domain hoster apologized, but what was lost, was lost.

What that means in English is that due to a technical snafu, any email
sent to me from around 6pm EST until a few minutes ago didn't reach
me. Including Areivim posts and Avodah submissions.

So, if you have an Avodah submission, please re-send it.

Thank you.

-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

Akiva Miller wrote (some time ago):
> Serious question: What about the city "Beit El"? Kodesh or Chol?

Rav Shlomo Aviner (The Rav of Bet El) wrote in his book "Mikedem L'vet El"
part 2 pp. 84-85. that there is no kedusha in the name of the yishuv "Bet
El", and there is no reason to say "Bet Kel"

K"T,
Amihai.

On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 11:38:49PM -0600, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. 
Bechhofer wrote:
: Hungarian (my favorite, you'll like it as well): By Kiddushin, the woman
: gives to a man, by MM, men give to men and women to women. By a woman
: to a man, the chashivus of the male over the female is an objective
: springboard (the Gemoro in Hori'os about who you save first), so you can
: assume sufficient hano'oh in his kabboloh to create kiddushin.

At 01:36 PM 3/8/01 -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
>Does this mean that one needs both the objective definition of chashivus,
>as well as a subjective element to raise this chashivus to the level of
>shaveh p'rutah? Otherwise, every adam would be able to get married that
>way. If so, then what does the springboard add for me? The ikkar is the
>add-on.

Putting on my Hungarian thinking cap, I think that the springboard is 
essential: One needs to establish disparity, then the shiur of the 
disparity can be gauged by significance. But if you have not established 
disparity, how can this get off the ground?

>Also, what about having a kohein chashuv, or one's rav who is chashuv
>recieve one's shalach manos? There two there is an objective difference
>in chashivus as a spring-board.

A  kohen is an interesting twist; perhaps a Hungarian would take that into 
account!

As to a rav - the Chasam Sofer (respected by the Hungarians, made an 
honorary Hungarain, although he was really one of us) says a rav cannot 
sign a six year contract becasuse that is considered "mimkeres eved" - you 
think that a rav has true chashivus?!

Apologies to the Oilem for no VIDC this past week, I hope the Oilem  is 
understanding of the exingencies...

And, sorry to have missed the MM!

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

In a message dated 2/26/01 12:28:47pm EST, Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
> Q2: If a Gentile dismembers a creature while alive and then later kills
> it. Is he allowed to consuem the limb that was removed while living.

No! see Shach S"K 27 on Y"D Simon 27.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 3/7/01 11:14:59am EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> I was told tonight by someone that the Chasam Sofer opposed anyone
> (except rabbonim) learning hilchos aveilus,  and that dire things had
> happened to all the members of a certain chabura (IIRC in Lakewood many
> years ago) who undertook this limud.

Perhaps this is connected with learning Maseches Moed Katan, see Sefer 
Chassidim # 261 (and R' Reuvain Margoliyas's edition some Marei Mkomos 
including Shut Yehuda Yaleh (R"Y Asad) Vol. 2 # 248, Kneses Hagdoloh Y"D 245 
Ois 3). I remember seeing somewhere that the L. Rebbe said that while they 
learned this as part of Learning all of Torah it wasn't done in the same 
manor as the other Halochos.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 2/28/01 3:36:17pm EST, Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
> Are there any sources discussing a woman wearing Tefillin specifically
> in conjunciton with being a Niddah?
> According to the stories that Rashi's daughters wore Tefillin, how were
> they noheig during their Niddah period?

RCS connected this with the Minhag of women WRT enteing Shul or seeing Sefer 
Torah (Brought in O"C 88), however there it says that it is only a MInhag not 
Mikar Hadin (and as brought in Y"D Hil. Sefer Torah), in private e-mail RRW 
wrote the following (from a e-mail to him) 
>Teshuvot haGeonim haChadasot, responsum 161 states "menstruating women are
> to avoid touching tefillin". I therefore presume that if you can not touch 
> tefillin, you can not lay tefillin on...

I didn't see it inside, but that could be connected to above issue, however 
perhaps a more definitive Rayoh to prohibit the wearing of Tfilin during 
Niddus may be from the Halacha in O"C 40 (in S"A Horav 40:9) that while a Bal 
Keri is Muttor to wear Tfilin, it is Ossur Boid SheHakeri Alav.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 3/12/01 1:48:08pm EST, erics@radix.net  writes:  
> Why is it that we all learn the one that says she was age 3, and not the  
> other one?  

YZ answered
> Because it is brought in Rashi.  

RJR asks
> and he chose that medrash because?

RMB responded:
>Because Rashi held that Yitzchak, being both an oleh al hamizbei'ach as
>well as being a maternal bechor (in the days before the eigel), had the din
>of a kohein. He therefore could not have married a giyores unless she was
>pechusah mibas shalosh when she came to Avraham's camp.

Which is from a Halachic perspective, from a Pshutoi Shel Mikra perspective 
see Rashi D"H Ben Arbo'im Shana (Breishis) 25:20, D"H Ben Shishim Shana 
25:26. (see also Mforshei Rashi on 22:20.

>>Because it is brought in Rashi.

REL asks 
> And people don't learn the Da'as Zekeinim M'balei Tosfos?

As was discussed a while back that Rashi is called (coming from Purim) 
"Parshandasa" (Lmalyusa) the Mforosh of the Das, this is further evidenced 
from the Halacha O"C 285 WRT Shnayim Mikra Vechos Targum, and as previously 
pointed to the Nkudas Hakesef on the Taz S"K 20 Y"D Simon 240, that Farzehn a 
Rashi may be a bigger Pela then Farzehn a Medrosh due to above Halacha.

BTW an interesing observation in O"C Simon 240 is Hil. Tznius in Y"D it is 
Hil. Kibbud Av Veim!
 
Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

To be posted later this week on the Dorrevii website

www.dorrevii.org or
www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4


va-yitein el Moshe k*khalato l*dabeir ito: Rashi comments:

The word *k*khalato* is written without a *vav* after the *lamed* to
intimate that the Torah was given over to Moshe as a gift, just as a
bride is given over to the groom [i.e., *va-yitein el Moshe k*kalahto*
(He gave Moshe a gift like his bride)], for in the brief time that Moshe
was on the mountain he was not able to learn the Torah in its entirety.

And in the Talmud (Nedarim 38b) the Sages say that, at first, Moshe
was learning the Torah, but kept forgetting it, until the Almighty gave
it to him as a present as it is written *va-yitein el Moshe k*khalato
l*dabeir ito.*

Behold our master taught a great lesson about the words of the Sages
and their riddles by revealing their hidden meaning. For the Almighty
gave us two Torot: the Written Torah that the Eternal gave to Moshe
written in its entirety by the Finger of G-d and the Oral Torah that was
transmitted from the Mouth of the Eternal to Moshe. Now there is no end
to the multitude of the laws that are contained within the Oral Torah
for its length is longer than the earth and its width is wider than
the oceans. And no man is capable of comprehending it in its entirety.
And even if a man should raise himself upon a cloud so that his head
might reach the heavens, his intellect would be unable to master them
all or to enumerate their multitudes.

And now the words of the Sages emerge like a rock, proved seven times
over. For at first, the Eternal wanted to teach Moshe the entire Torah,
each and every law and statute together as a unit, without a single one
missing. And He wished to seal it off, so that it would not be possible
for Moshe or the Sages of each generation to originate anything new
besides that which was received at Sinai. However, even Moshe, the
mightiest of the shepherds and the lord of the prophets, was unable
to bear such a burden, for they were too many and he was too weary to
carry them all on the tablet of his heart to keep them constantly in
his memory. So Moshe kept learning and forgeting until the Almighty
gave it to him as a present. For then the Almighty gave the Torah over
to Moshe with its rules, i.e., the thirteen hermeneutic rules by which
the Torah may be derived, and with a few additional laws that were also
transmitted to Moshe at Sinai. And by means of these rules, Moshe was
able to derive the Torah and to bend it as he desired should he wish to
bring near or should he wish to push away, just as R. Yehoshua cried
when he stood to argue with R. Eliezer, *we do not pay attention to a
heavenly voice for it is not in heaven* (ein mashgihim b*vat kol ki lo
ba-shamayim hi). Rather the Torah is ours to do with as a person does
with his own property. And so, at the moment when the Torah was given
to Moshe as a present, it was therefore within his power to comprehend
it by means of the thirteen hermeneutic rules. And understand well,
for these are the words of the living G-d.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 11:00:20AM -0500, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
: See Collected Writings of R'Hirsch vol 5 for his criticism of Graetz,
: who asserted essentially the same idea - that pre-churban Sanhedrin
: was a centralized authority sitting in lishkas hagazis (makom mikdash)
: and post churban RYB"Z had to decentralize that authority.

I didn't see RSRH's problem in that light at all. After all, we can't
deny that the fall of the Sanhedrin did remove centralized authority.
If we don't want to say RYbZ did it, then HKBH did by destroying the
lishkah (or allowing the Romans to do so).

There was a shift from beis din to a person acting as a sheliach of beis
din, as per Mes. Sanhedrin.

My understanding of Graetz's position is that he claims that RYbZ invented
a post-Temple Judaism. One that not only didn't rely on a central authority
but that it was structured in a way that the authority doesn't exist in
the new system. Rather than seeing RYbZ as paskening within the old system
given a radically new context, Graetz claimed RYbZ reformed Judaism.

How Graetz can say that about RYbZ, whose majority of takkanos were lezeicher
haMikdash, keeping as much of the Mikdash as possible after its fall, is
beyond (or beneath) me.

-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:
> So Lchatchila it would seem that even balabatim who go to a "normal"
> mincha minyan just before shkia should go home and come back for the post
> tzeit minyan if their community has one. I know someone who tries to
> do this, but this seems to be a miut dmiut. Any idea why?

There is davka a kula for Tefillah Betzibbur that has been accepted for
the last 200 years or so.

Yeshivish/Gra tend to daven Mincha before Shkia and Maariv right away
w/o tzeis. Chassidishe/RT tend to daven Mincha just before Tzeis and
Maariv right after tzeis.

We discussed some of the trade-offs about 2-3 weeks ago.

It is arguable saying Krias Shma after vaday tzeis with the brachos has
some advantages over davening Mincha "bizmano"...

Shalom
Rich Wolpoe

On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Amihai Bannett wrote:
> Rav Shlomo Aviner (The Rav of Bet El) wrote in his book "Mikedem L'vet El"
> part 2 pp. 84-85. that there is no kedusha in the name of the yishuv "Bet
> El", and there is no reason to say "Bet Kel"

I assume you have the book.
Does he discuss on which day they keep Purim (seeing that it is right next
to the ancient Tel Beit El)?

From: Phyllostac@aol.com [mailto:Phyllostac@aol.com]
> It seems that the hassidic / kabbalistic way has spread to such an extent in 
> recent times that the old classical opinions are almost in danger of being 
> forgotten / unknown by the masses.
> 
> I think this problem should be addressed and classical viewpoints should be 
> publicized. 

I agree wholeheartedly.  I had a similar experience, e.g., when comparing
what I was taught at Shaalvim to what I was taught at YU and later at Gush.

In this vein, I strongly recommend Rabbi Shalom Carmy's article on Suffering
(appears in the Orthodox Forum book on Suffering edited by R. Carmy and also
in the most recent Torah U'Maddah Journal).  He notes how certain "accepted"
approaches to suffering don't really stand up to scrutiny.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Gil Student
> the proof from Polish dress only proves that the minhag is like the
> Maharik (quoted by the Rama in YD 178:1) and not like Tosafos.  The Gra (YD
> 178:7) paskened like Tosafos.

While I agree there is a machlokes Gra vs Rema, I'm not sure how far it
goes. The Rema/Maharik learn that hukas akum means there is NO reason
why the goyim wear this, then we assume it is based in AZ from previous
generations. Therefore, clothing of kavod, like a doctor's uniform
is mutar.

The Gra in Tos and Rmabam disagrees. Hukas akum is NOT meaningless,
rather itr is anything myuchad to them. Therefore, dr.'s clothes are
forbidden. Yet the Gra is bothered by the proofs of the Maharik and
concedes half of the argument l'maaseh by saying anything WE would
have worn anyway is mutar. I'm not sure how out-of-fashion is the Gra.
Perhaps we would have worn Polish clothes anyway.

Just a h'ara halacha v'lo l'maaseh because I agree the minhag is like
the Rema.

Shlomo Goldstein

On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 10:27:23 EST Yzkd@aol.com writes:
> I remember seeing somewhere that the L. Rebbe said that while they 
> learned this as part of Learning all of Torah it wasn't done in the same 
> manor as the other Halochos.

        How was (is) it different?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Rich Wolpoe wrote:
     
> Yeshivish/Gra tend to daven Mincha before Shkia and Maariv right away w/o 
> tzeis. 

The Gra paskens that it is better to daven a full Ma'ariv (Shema, berachos, 
Shemoneh Esreih) biyechidus after tzeis than to daven with a tzibbur before.  I 
don't think that this is the yeshivishe minhag.

Gil

Shlomo Goldstein wrote:
     
> While I agree there is a machlokes Gra vs Rema, I'm not sure how far it goes. 
> The Rema/Maharik learn that hukas akum means there is NO reason why the goyim 
> wear this, then we assume it is based in AZ from previous generations. 
> Therefore, clothing of kavod, like a doctor's uniform is mutar.

The Maharik actually goes farther than the Rema seems to.  The Maharik's 
teshuvah is a little hard to find in older editions but the relevant portion is 
quoted in the Beis Yosef.  The Maharik seems to say that anything that is not 
done specifically to imitate Gentiles is mutar.  I think that the newer edition 
of the Maharik has a footnote pointing out that the Rema does not say that.
     
> Perhaps we would have worn Polish clothes anyway.
     
I don't think so, but it seems silly to argue about it.

Gil Student

A little late,  but nevertheless,

1.  How was parashas zachor done before the time of Megilas Esther?
2.  Any difference for the three year cycle of krias haTorah?
3.  Why is the mitzva of parashas zachor done by reading from a sefer
    Torah whereas, for example, zachor es yom hashabbos lekadesho is done
    with kiddush, and the other zechiros apparently just by mentioning
    at most?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Seth Mandel wrote on Areivim:
> Clearly, the issur d'orayso of b'huqqotehem refers to a case where Jews
> adopt a religious ceremony of AZ for use in worshipping the One True G-d,
> as it says "v'e'eseh ken gam ani." Just as clearly, the issur does not
> refer to non-religious practices of goyim: Polish goyim (the upper-class)
> wore long black coats and fur hats,and that did not mean that Polish
> Jews were osur to wear them. But what about a custom which originally
> existed among Jews and LATER was adopted by goyim for AZ purposes? Does
> that mean that Jews should stop doing what they used to do, just because
> the goyim in their tiflus decided to use it to worship their gods?

R. Gil Student:
> I am sorry if I am missing something obvious, but don't Tosafos in
> Avodah Zarah 11a say that even a custom that is mentioned in Tanach but
> is adopted by goyim for avodah zarah becomes assur?

You have a hazoqo that you don't miss anything obvious, R. Gil, and here
likewise. However, the Tosfos is specifically addressing the question
of something that is mentioned in the Torah, and that was not what I
wanted to talk about.

R. Gil:
> Also, the proof from Polish dress only proves that the minhag is like
> the Maharik (quoted by the Rama in YD 178:1) and not like Tosafos. The
> Gra (YD 178:7) paskened like Tosafos.>

Yes indeed. And exactly germane. The Gra, of course, is l'shitoso, as
I brought him in the Ma'ase Rav, which I thought would be a simpler and
easier reference (everyone knows about christmas trees). But even the Gra
agrees, that if goyim do it for a completely sensible reason not connected
with religion, then the Jews can do it, too; he specifically excludes
malbushim as long as other people (not the specific 'ovdei AZ) do also.

So this brings me back to my specific question: what are the limits if
the Jews had a custom -- not a din d'orayso or even a d'rabbonon -- to do
something, like put flowers and trees in the shul on Shovu'os, and then
later the Goyim adopted something similar for their churches. The Gra'
would asur it, but would the R'Mo', based on the Mahariq permit it? The
Mahariq is only talking about things which goyim are not doing l'shem
their religion, no?

And if we say that indeed in such a case everyone would agree with
the Gra', then how are benches allowed in shuls? A custom clearly and
transparently borrowed from the goyim, and there are hundreds of drawings
of shuls before the advent of Reform to prove it. Or is it rather what I
alluded to in my post, that the rabbonim of the time were fighting tooth
and nail with the Reform, and the battles they fought most strenuously
were those that they could point to a clear SA or Rambam, like the shulhan
being in the middle of the shul. But something like benches they let be,
because there were too many battles being waged to fight on every jot
and tittle.

Let me remind everybody that RSH, the opponent of the Reform with the
most draconian solution, austritt, wore a tahler (the white collar worn
by German pastors). Is that a proof that he held not like the Gra'? It
would seem to me the answer is yes, but then where do you draw the
line? This doesn't seem to be clearly muttar according to the Mahariq,
either, unless you interpret him very broadly.

Let me also remind people that one of the first battles with the Reform
was the organ in shul. Minhag Ash'knaz, as paskened in the SA black on
white (as strange as it seems to us nowadays, how times have changed)
is that it is permitted to have a goy play music on shabbos for a
Jewish simha. Specifically they are talking about a hasuna in OH siman
338:2, and in that case the R'Mo' even permits telling the goy to do
a d'orayso of tiqqun k'li shir. But even not in the case of the huppa,
the rishonim and aharonim make it clear that you could ask the goy just
to play, because it is shvus dishvus b'moqom mitzva. See the MB there,
s'q 8. So it is clear that both the M'habber and the R'Mo' allow you to
hire a goyishe band to play music during your shabbas sheva brokhos!

Clearly, something has drastically changed. I have even mentioned this
halokho to talmidei hakhomim who denied strenuously the existence of such
a M'habber and R'Mo'. Well, to anyone with some knowledge of history,
what changed is obvious: originally the Reform used this as a halakhic
justification for hiring a goy to play an organ in shul on Friday night.
According to contemporary accounts, many rabbonim went along, because
it was pretty hard to deny their "halakhic" proof. It was rather people
like the Hasam Sofer, who knew that this was just a Trojan horse for the
more far-reaching changes in practice and abandonment of halokho that
the Reformers really wanted, that drew the line in the sand. No organ in
an Orthodox shul on shabbos. Instrumental music on shabbos became a dirty
word to Orthodox Jews, precisely because of Reform. And so nowadays people
do not believe that this halokho ever existed, although the related one
that allows dancing on shabbos is accepted by hasidim and some others,
since it never was a cause celebre between Orthodox and Reform.

So this was the discussion I was trying to elicit, and encourage everyone
with some insights to join in: let's forget for the moment about Reform
and the battle against it. From a purely halakhic perspective, when
do things that the goyim do in church, as part of their service, asser
us to follow them even if we were doing it before them? Does it make a
difference if they have a reason for doing it in church not connected
with their religious service, like perhaps is the case with benches
(true, a more efficient way of packing people in, but it also serves a
religious function for christianity)?

Seth Mandel

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


[ 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         ]