Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 010

Thursday, September 19 2002

• Rabbi Y.E. Henkin and "chazan vekahal"
• Re: Bowing during the Avodas Yom Kippur
• Pant's Heter
• CC, pesaq, and mussar
• Re: re: Esrog mehudar
• Sukkot Yerushalayim canvas succah
• Re: re: Esrog mehudar
• Re: re: Esrog mehudar
• Re: Kahal v'Chazan, or Chazan v'Kahal? (was: avinu malkenu and selichot)
• Re: Laundry on Chol HaMoed
• minor correction in Chazan veKahal--.R. Y. E. Henkin
• Re: LeDovid Hashem Ori
• Business Ethics
• Rav Bulman and Rav Breuer--more
• Re: CC, pesaq, and mussar
• Re: Rav Bulman and Rav Breuer
• Re: Why teach the other opinions
• Re: Teiku
• Re: CC, pesaq, and mussar
• RE: Yaknehoz candles
• RE: Yaknehoz candles

"Chazan veKahal--oh Kahal veChazan" is In Kitvei haGri"a Henkin,
vol. 1, page kuf chaf heh (par. 66). It was originally printed in
the 95-page Mador haHalachah which he attached to Ezras Torah's 30th
anniversary yearbook (1946) called "Eidut LeYsrael" in honor of R. Israel
Rosenberg z"l, the first president of ET. For that reason it, too, was
called "Eidut LeYsrael" and cited dozens of times under that name in
Shaarim Hametzuyanim BeHalacha (1st edition) , Yesodei Yeshurun, etc.
The preceeding par. 65 on "Nusach Ashkenaz and Nusach Sefarad" is cited
by Shu"t Seridei Eish, Yabia Omer and others.

On 18 Sep 2002 at 0:23, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> The German custom is for the entire Khal to say the paragraph "v'hakohaim 
> v'ha'am" including kor'im and it is repeated by the Chazzan afterwards

That seems to be the minhag in most shuls here as well. 

 -- Carl

I remember a piece written by Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin in Shana
be-Shana, and I believe it was reprinted in Resp Bnai Bnaim I, in which he
lists a whole bunch of pesakim from his grandfather Therein he asks his
grandfather whether he had any objection to slacks. I believe the answer
stated that if they were loose (not form-fitting) there was no problem.

[In a later email.... -mi]

My brother Dov says I remembered correctly.

Aryeh
Frimea@mail.biu.ac.il

In <http://www.aishdas.org/articles/zechus.pdf>, RGS notes that the
CC paskens like Rabbeinu Yonah on the parameters of dan lekaf zechus.

This reminded me of something I stared wondering about after a comment
R' Dovid Lifshitz made about the CC.

Did the CC have a clear line between mussar and din? RDL left me with
the impression that the CC's hashkafah bedavkah rules out the existance
of such a line.

It would explain the nature of the sefer Chafetz Chaim where pesaq and
derashah intertwine, the MB's approach to chumros and "textualism", and
why here he holds like Sha'arei Teshuvah rather than one of the sifrei
pesaq (like the Yad).

Thoughts?

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 11:55:14AM -0400, Gil Student wrote:
: See Sukkah 30a-b and Orach Chaim 649:1...

Which is why I'm tying the pesul to the buyer's aiding him in tax evasion,
and not the salesman's evasion itself. Which is why I also thought that
making a point of using your credit card, or a check that is NOT made
out to cash could be enough to get you out of this soup.

As for your sources, hopefully the following will tease some people into
looking them up.

If I understand the gemara correctly, R' Yochanan quotes R' Shim'on
bar Yochai as saying that even after yi'ush, mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah
still pasuls the lulav. Despite the fact that it's now "lakhem".

OTOH, R' Yitzchaq quotes Shemu'el that it IS kasher because we assume
yi'ush. Rava's answer, that mitzvah haba'ah ba'veirah doesn't apply, is
only to explain Shemu'el. The machloqes stands, though.

Moving on to the rishonim... See RMK's summary at
<http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/dafyomi2/sukah/insites/su-dt-30.htm>.
A nice survey of definitions of MHB.

Add to his list the Minchas Chinuch (#325) who makes a chiluq. MBH says
that one is unable to fulfil the ratzon Hashem with an item that was
obtained by violating that Ratzon. This renders the lulav pasul.

MBH does /not/, however, change the cheftzah. So a stolen succah that one
is sitting in is still a kosher succah. Succah, after the first night,
avoids a lav rather than implements a chiyuv (ratzon Hashem). Which is
why Succah still needs a derashah of "lachem".

As for din, the Rama in OC649:1 tells you not to cut your own 4 minim
from an oveid AZ's land because he is likely to have stolen the land,
qarqa einah nigzeles, so the act of cutting is the actually gezeilah --
and therefore you would not be yotzei. Very much like nidon didan.

-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.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Sukkot Yerushalayim produces a canvas succah that gets around the problem
of canvas succos by (in addition to the canvas walls) creating imaginary
halachic walls through the principle of lavod. What they do is that
they have a series of 4 very tight straps, each within 3 tefachim of
the other, and the bottom one w/i 3 tefachim of the ground. In effect,
the straps are the "real" walls from a halachic point of view and the
canvas (which can flap around and isn't that tight) is just there for
comfort (e.g., to block wind & sun). (ROY gave his approval that this
succah does not violate the recommendation of the mechaber in OC 630:10
not to make mechitzos from pishtan even when they are tied down because
the knot may get undone.)

Query: the canvas is attached to the frame via velcro and it can be
easily removed while the straps remain in place; would it be permissible
to remove the canvas on Shabbos/Yom Tov, as halachically the "wall"
still remains?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On 19 Sep 2002 at 2:23, Micha Berger wrote:
> As for din, the Rama in OC649:1 tells you not to cut your own 4 minim
> from an oveid AZ's land because he is likely to have stolen the land,
> qarqa einah nigzeles, so the act of cutting is the actually gezeilah
> -- and therefore you would not be yotzei. Very much like nidon didan.

Except that the Arba Minim never belonged to the government in any 
sense. So I'm not sure I see the similarity.

-- Carl

On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 11:12:23AM +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: > As for din, the Rama in OC649:1 tells you not to cut your own 4 minim
: > from an oveid AZ's land because he is likely to have stolen the land,
: > qarqa einah nigzeles, so the act of cutting is the actually gezeilah
: > -- and therefore you would not be yotzei. Very much like nidon didan.

: Except that the Arba Minim never belonged to the government in any 
: sense. So I'm not sure I see the similarity.

The issue isn't ownership and "lakhem", this is day 2 onward.

The question is whether assisting another's cheit is enough to pasul
the person's 4 minim. Whether that cheit is theft of the items cut
or DDD.

-mi

In a message dated 9/13/2002 1:07:51pm EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> Originally:
> The chazan said "L'keil orech din" and the kahal answered "L'vochen
> livavot b'yom din"
> The chazan said "L'goleh dayot badin" and the kahal answered "L'dover
> meisharim b'yom din"

FWIW
still done at my congregation

Shanah Tovah
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

R. Raffy asked if one is permitted to do a laundry during Chol HaMoed (for
sheets) if one is expecting many guests and there are not enough sheets.

There is a question whether using a washing machine = "kibus". Most poskim
say yes; however see Shmirat Shabbat K'Hilchata Ch. 42 note 139. Since one
can ask a goy to turn on the washing machine during Chol HaMoed (Mishna
Brura 468:7) and washing items that get quickly soiled is permitted (Aruch
Hashulchan OC 434 # 4 {"v'chen hetiru l'chabeys mitpachot ha'sfog v'heym
SDINIM she'mitatfim bahem b'tzeytam mimerchatz"], and washing children's
clothing is permitted, my suggestion is to assume you're washing the kids'
sheets and have a gentile neighbor push the button on the machine.

Josh

[The following came in after I approved the post in question. I agree
with RYHH that this isn't the best medium for modes of speech like
guzmah. -mi]

Please change "dozens of times" to "numerous times." (second from
last line).

Chag Sameach.

>>> Similarly(?) what are rules for what you must say if you're just passing
through (yes Alenu, what about tachanun and must you put your head
down,avinu malkenu..)>>>

According to RSZA in Halichos Shlomo, tachanun (including actual nefilas
apayim) is like Aleinu, and that if one is passing through a minyan that is
saying tachanun, one should recite it with the tzibbur.

KT
Aryeh

I hesitate to raise this topic because I fear that for a lot of you it
will confirm some of your bad impressions about lawyers.

This week, as the result of a conversation I had with another lawyer
at another firm, it became obvious to me that he and probably many
other lawyers in Israel routinely pad their bills without telling the
clients. The reason they do this is because Israeli clients expect a
discount on their bills (clients who just pay the bill are a rarity here
regardless of the size of the bill - I have a client who is now trying
to make me eat the VAT on a $2000 invoice), and probably assume that
everyone pads their bills (just like the income tax people here assume
everyone cheats). By padding the bill, you have room to negotiate with
the clients without giving up money that you actually deserve.

Call me a frier (probably the worst thing you can do to an Israeli), but
I don't do this (and I was stunned when I heard it, but the last time I
heard it, it related to a specific client of a specific firm with whom I
was working, and I assumed it was a one-time thing and lost a lot of money
on the bill). I bill straight time and automatically attach my unvarnished
time sheets to every bill. But I'm also getting killed on collections.

I was thinking whether it would be mutar to pad the bill for clients
who are problematic, with the intention of negotiating away the padding
without negotiating away the meat. But before I ask a shaila as to
whether it's permitted to do that, I wanted to ask you guys what you
think of it. I think it's ona'a to do it without putting an explicit
line in the bill that says "premium" or something similar.

Thoughts? 

-- Carl

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.

T613K@aol.com writes:
> The people who worked and supported Torah, and the people who learned Torah 
> full-time, saw themselves as part of one great enterprise.  The mutual love 
> and inspiration was something rare, a foretaste perhaps of Messianic times.

With no small credit due your father of course. AIUI he left a lot of
"kishkes" there.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 9/18/2002 9:22:42pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Did the CC have a clear line between mussar and din? RDL left me with
> the impression that the CC's hashkafah bedavkah rules out the existance
> of such a line....

I mentioned to a friend of mine that the MB reads a bit more like a Musar 
Sefer than a Halachah sefer and my friend concurred - though this by no means 
reduced his respect for the sefer since the fellow in question likes Mussar
<smile>

It's not that the CC lacked for Lamdus or illuyishkeit etc. The Ikkar
ta'ana I have is that I cannot find any coherent methodology. Contrast
this with say Brisk which at least tries to come up with replicatable
apporoach

Or to put it this way, if you learn a Sefer such as Beis Yosef you can
learn HOW to be a poseik, OTOH if you learn MB it is a much bigger stretch

Shanah Tovah
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
> Since we now have R' Bulman's daughter as a prominent poster to Areivim,

You are making me very self-conscious.  I don't know what my father Z'TL 
would have said on every subject I write about and you cannot assume that I 
speak for him unless I actually quote him (which happens only occasionally).  
I feel so small in his shadow and also so very, very sad for all the 
questions I never asked him or asked and have forgotten the answers to.

> I think it is apropos to ask her to expands on an intriguing line in
> the JO devoted to her father's memory in which R' Bulman was linked to
> Dr. Breuer.

> I have written on Dr. Breuer, one of my several "heroes," both here and
> in the JO. I am interested in reading:

> 1. How R' Bulman came to Dr. Breuer's thought?

I need a box of tissues for the questions I'll never know the answers to.
All I can say is, my father read absolutely everything. Not just read,
absorbed. From 1975 on my father lived in E"Y and I did not (I got
married in 1977) and I know relatively little about what shaped his
thinking during those years.

 From my younger years I know that my father was enormously influenced
by R. Shamshon Raphael Hirsch in many, many ways (I may write more about
Federation some day, don't know if you followed all that) and I suppose
R. Breuer was a natural extension. I have not read R. Breuer nor most
of the seforim my father read. Which is why I have rejected suggestions
that I write my father's biography. It would take a talmid chacham to
do him justice.

> 2. How R' Bulman's community was a fulfillment of Dr. Breuer's ideology?

My father's community in Migdal Hae'emek was called Kiryat Nachliel
after Rav Breuer's sefer. It lasted 14 years and fell apart for only two
reasons: it was not financially viable, and Mashiach had not yet come
(according to most opinions). Constant fund-raising and travelling broke
my father's health. Other than that, it was Utopia.

At the Shloshim for my father one of his talmidim, a "taiera Yid" named
R. Dovid Levine, talked about the four years he and his wife lived in
Kiryat Nachliel. His wife also spoke to me privately about it, crying at
the memory. It's so hard for me to convey the flavor of what they said,
but they lived at a level of high inspiration there. "The peak years
of our lives." "Your father was my father."

R. Levine in his hesped said, "Rav Hirsch in Frankfurt had it easy.
He only had to deal with Germans. Rav Bulman had to deal with Americans
and Israelis, Georgians, Russians and Kafkazim, baalei teshuva and frum
from birth, kollel men and working men--and the amazing thing is that
he kept them all in a state of mutual peace and harmony, with everyone
feeling that they were working for a common goal--to serve Hakadosh
Baruch Hu."

My father was mechanech people, how to daven, how to learn. Before shul
he would play with the little kids and laugh at their antics, but during
the davening if one them made any noise, my father would fix the kid with
"a look" and, as R. Levine said in his hesped, "the child would quake
and the father would quake."

Once he saw a man pick up one of those parsha sheet handouts people leave
on the tables, and start to look at it during the davening. My father
walked over to him, took the sheet away, put it back on the table, and
walked back to his own seat without saying a word. Everyone in shul got
the message.

For various reasons, R. Levine lives and teaches in Florida now,
constantly longing for Eretz Yisrael. A few years ago when I first met
him and visited his home, I was touched to see that he had a picture
of my father on his mantel. He introduced me to his children with,
"Look who came to visit us! This is the daughter of my rebbe!"

I feel as if there aren't enough tears in the world for what I have lost.

> 3. Whether R' Bulman accepted and/or disseminated Dr. Breuer's thought
> about matters other than Yishuv EY per se?

I do not know. Maybe my brothers do. My brother Heshy in Toronto is
particularly clued up to what my father thought and read. He's at
<HB@qualitycrystals.com>

One other thing: the shul my father started in Neveh Yaakov in J-m four
years ago is also called Nachliel. It is still going strong, a very nice
place to daven. Obviously the name had significance for my father but
I regret to say I don't know what. When he was alive I was content to
think it was somehow Hirschian and never went further into it than that.

[Email #2. -mi]

YGB asked me how Rav Bulman's community was a fulfillment of Rav Breuer's
vision. I would like to add a little more to what I have written.

My father's community in Migdal Ha'emek was called Kiryat Nachliel,
after Rav Breuer's sefer, as I wrote. (My father's shul in Y-m was/is
called Bais Medrash Nachliel. It is in Neveh Yaakov.)

The idea of the community was that it would be a complete kehilla. My
father started a school for girls (still going) and a yeshiva/kollel
as well as a shul (still there, but not Anglo anymore). There were also
other schools already there, in Migdal ha'emek and in Haifa.

There were supposed to be people learning full-time in kollel as well as
people working and supporting the kollel. There _were_ people working
(and yes, men who went to the army), but the surrounding economic
infrastructure was not there. There were not enough jobs in Migdal
Hae'emek or in Haifa. The kehilla my father envisioned might have
succeeded in New Jersey--but then it wouldn't have been Eretz Yisrael.

The most striking thing about the community, during the 14 years it
lasted, and the thing that former members remember with longing, is that
a wide variety of people lived there harmoniously. The usual acrimony and
mutual animosity that exists (unfortunately) between different Orthodox
chugim in E"Y was not there at all. The kehilla had a chareidi tilt,
but, for example, when people muttered about one new member who wore a
kipa seruga, my father squelched the muttering.

The people who worked and supported Torah, and the people who learned
Torah full-time, saw themselves as part of one great enterprise.
The mutual love and inspiration was something rare, a foretaste perhaps
of Messianic times.

Toby Katz

In a message dated 9/13/2002 1:11:21pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> To me, the question is coming up with a well-defined principle for why
> I could insist that eilu va'eilu should apply between some other stripe
> of O and me, but still reserve the right to do the very same thing to
> C positions.

> To do this, "the pale" -- as in "C is beyond the pale" -- needs a clear
> definition.

Let's say OBSERVANT community.  
AISI, C today is no by and large Observant.

Certainly this can be shown to be circular to an extent. EG if people
violate the gzeira of not clapping on Shabbas and Tosafos uses this as
a raya you COULD say "AHA, Tosfafos is bringin a raya from a community
that is non-Observant of Clapping" and then extrapolate it to mean they
are at least mumarim for this one gzeira etc.

However, as RMF points out in IM Orach Chaim 100 pt. 2 that a frum
communities lack of Observance of a prat in Halachah DOES have meaning,
you say that lack of Observance of a given Gzeira is more about acceptance
that a given gzeira is now considered obsolete rather than the community
itself is now considered beyond the pale.

Example 1
Many Observant Communites to NOT Observe Mayyaim Acharonim due to
Tosafos. Therefore it is ipso facto OK to rely upon those communities -
at least insofar as not ignoring one;'s own minhaggim etc. etc.

Example 2
OTOH AFAIK the gzeira of not doing refuah on Shabbos - while more liberal
now - has not been deemd obsolete by either a poseik nor by any community
I know.

conclusion: deviating who constitue a priztus geder at least.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So if Poseik A paskens AND it gets accepted by a community or a range
of Communities over a period of time, it is reliable.

Caveat this does not mean a psak is infallible. It can be demonstrable
at times that the original psak was based upon an oversight, a
mis-understanding or a faulty girsa etc.

See Tur ORach Chaim 68 re: the controversy re: Yotzros for an example
Also SA ORach Chaim 46 re: hanosein lyaef koach as another.

Bootom line: Community normative practice is a raya in many cases that
a psak has validity

[Email #2. -mi]

In a message dated 9/12/2002 1:22:29pm EDT, acgerstl@hotmail.com writes:
> A din about which there was a previous uncertainty may have been decided
> in the Gemorah ("devar Mishnah"); or a din that was not decided in the
> Gemorah may become subject to a consensus among Rishonim or Achronim
> ("sugya de-almah") and by convention no longer subject to debate;
> otherwise the din remains open to decision by any qualified...

> The matter of the gadlut of a posek and hence the weight to be attributed
> to his pesak is, IIUC, relevant to a case where a posek who is unable
> after attempting to do so to come to a hachrah as to the halacha based
> upon raayot muchrachot and must therefore categorize the instant Halachic
> question as a safek....

> Gadlut of those poskim who hold to a particular position, is also
> relevant to the practice among poskim, as a matter of humility and of
> common-sense prudence, to consult with more renouned poskim and obtain
> their agreement when dealing with such matters as will have dramatic
> consequences....

AISI to summarize
"Pernmission to disagree with poskim is not a carte blanche heter to 
overturn an evolved consensus"
 --------------------
An example of this kind of thinking can be shown in the Aruch Hashulchan
{AhS} re: the Brachah of al nkiyyus Yadayim {Orach Chyayim Siman 4 iirc}
when water is lacking.

AhS agrees with the Rashba in theory that the brachah of Al netillas
Yadayim is better and that the Rosh and Tur's proposal of Al Nkiyyus
was problmatic but he deffered to their opinion.

Many people would claim the AhS was being humble due to niskatnu Hadoros

AISI it's not because of histaknu that he deferred, rather AhS realized
by the time he rolled around the Tur's psak was already established,
and he had no call to overturn it.

That's how Halachah evolves. Therefore the AhS agreed with the Rashba's
shita "qua Lamdus" but not in psak because as the AhS saw it it simply
did not take hold.

Another Mashal. I can advocate that in theory Rabbeinu Tam's Tefilin
is superior but I would be "Poretz Gedder to advocate changing it based
merely upon analysis. There must be a MUCH more compelling reason.

and FWIW The ONE case where IMHO there IS such a compelling reason for
change is the Get/Agunah issue

Sometimes we need to overcome Halachah inertia but we need to pick our
deviations with great care. I consider the Get/Agunah issues just such
an es La'asos.

Shanah Tovah
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 9/5/2002 12:14:21pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Since he was around during all that time, presumably Eliyahu could simply
> remember what Sanhedrin said and what the mesorah was.

That's how I see it.
Sanhedrin went into limbo at the time of the Churban. It's kind of like
hitting the pasue button on a CD player andd Eliyahu Hanavi will restart
things again.

Plus he can fill the role of mechanech for the newly duly constituted
Sanhedrin and THEN they will be able to get up to speed on many issues.
EG think about how much Zrai'm, Kadshim, and Taharos that has been
forgotten! and if nvuah is not a valid method for restirng lost knowldge
than we will need someone with a VERY long memory

Shanah Tovah
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 12:49:31AM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: It's not that the CC lacked for Lamdus or illuyishkeit etc.

I'm arguing that it's a feature of his mussarkeit -- that to the CC,
everything came from mussar be it a de'Oraisa or a hanhagah instituted by
the Alter (either Alter). Therefore the line between "halachah requires"
and "it's healthy mussar development" is blurred -- and he would believe
is SUPPOSED to be blurry.

After all, issur veheter is a blurry line. Yeish machmirim, veyeish
meiqilim. And to a ba'al mussar, promoting some mussar objective is the
highest reason lehachmir. So, you see that mussar goals encroach halachah.

On the other side, halachah is the only incontravertable source for
evaluating actions. So one's mussar -- or any true hashkafah must fit the
data provided by the halachic process. (To use RSRH's notion of hashkafah
paralleling scientific hypothesis.) So halachah defines mussar as well.

:                                                              The Ikkar ta'ana 
: I have is that I cannot find any coherent methodology.  Contrast this with 
: say Brisk which at least tries to come up with replicatable apporoach

The first line here is a non-sequitur. Mussar isn't about a lack of
methodology, nor is it weaker in methodology.

I think you can not find coherent methodology only because you lack
the years experience you have with Brisker derech.

Also, Brisk is cerebral, which means it's inherently more formal and
reducable to algorithm. A mussar-based approach is going to more often
weigh competing values, something that requires more of a feel than
a program.

: Or to put it this way, if you learn a Sefer such as Beis Yosef you can learn 
: HOW to be a poseik, OTOH if you learn MB it is a much bigger stretch   

This was the bug RDL put in my ear. That AhS is a better source for
getting a sense of halachah. Not just halachah pesukah, but the whole
feel for the inyan. Part of that is simply the way the AhS presents his
sevara. But part also is that "the MB is about developing the person
reading the seifer into a shomeir Torah umitzvos, not about developing
the halachah." (That quote is what I recall, but as I also recall my
rebbe saying it in his quasi-Poilish-quasi-modern IVris, something's
off with my memory.)

-mi

PS: I'm going to post your email because I like how my reply came out
and want an excuse to post it. Call me selfish.

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com [mailto:kennethgmiller@juno.com]
> R' Shlomo Abeles asks <<< if one does use 2 candles and is 
> careful that only the flames are touching each other - then 
> when you separate them - is it considered reducing the flame? >>>
> 
> I was wondering the same thing, and so long ago I started 
> making my own Yaknehaz candles.
<snip>
> Does anyone see any problems with such a setup? 

Isn't this motzee laaz al ha'rishonim--i.e., for hundreds of years people
have been putting candles together for Yaknehaz and no one was choshesh
that this was assur because of mechabeh.

Pashtus, I would think that this is not mechabeh--the candles are still
burning although the flame is smaller. After all, no one forbids walking
with a candle even though the flame is diminished while you're walking.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> Pashtus, I would think that this is not mechabeh--the candles are still
> burning although the flame is smaller. After all, no one forbids walking
> with a candle even though the flame is diminished while you're walking.

but when you put them together it DOES increase the fuel supply (melting
more wax) -- and when you separate they the fuel supply is reduced.

Akiva

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


[ 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         ]