Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 027

Monday, October 14 2002

• More on Klapping during Selach Lanu
• Adv: Va'ad Leadership Seminar
• Re: violating the will of the majority
• RE: M'Vorchim HaChodesh
• Re: M'Vorchim HaChodesh
• Re: Violating the will of the majority
• Ve Tein Tal U matar in Chutz la'aretz
• Re: Violating the will of the majority
• Re: reflections on the eighth month
• Re: oseh ha-shalom
• Re: Violating the will of the majority

I presume this was forwarded. -mi]

>Sefer Chokri Minhagim from R' Eliyahu Gurary deals with the issue...
>
>He quotes and anyone including me can see inside: R' Yaakov Emden's Siddur 
>by Slach Lanu (p.257 in new Eshkol) says this
>in the name of the Shelah... no klapping on days without tachanun... I 
>could not find it in the Shelah by CD-ROM. It was not in Kitzur HaShelah 
>and I did not see it in its place in the Shelah Siddur. I am interested in 
>seeing it inside.
>
>He also cites "Siddur Nehora HaShalem (Iyun Tefilla in Dinay Arvis Motzei 
>Shabbas), also in Yalkut Gershoni to OH 293: "not only on days w/o but 
>also Motzo'ei Shabbos etc..." Now I have not had time to research who, 
>where? I looked and I have a perush in my R' Ganzfried Siddur called that 
>but it is not there... so I appreciate if someone could tell me where inside.
>
>As for when it started in Chabad, the Alter Rebbe was a "Shelah Yid" so 
>did he know and do this back then privately?

AishDas will soon be starting local Ve'adim, groups of chaveirim working
together on avodas Hashem and sheleimus ha'adam. These will not simply be
another chaburah or shi'ur. The ve'adim will be groups of people working
together to apply the words of mesorah to their own particular lives,
abilities and situations.

To do so, these ve'adim will need organizers, people who know what a
va'ad is and how AishDas will be implementing the idea. They will then
be able to set the expectations and tone of the group.

To educate us on how to do this, we'll be meeting iy"h Motza'ei Shabbos,
or layom Marcheshvan 28, November 2nd 2002. (Location to be decided,
but in the New York area.)

Partcipation requires learning the relevent Kunteres al Limud Mussar from
R' Wolbe's Alei Shur (cheleiq beis) beforehand. Electronic copies of the
relevent pages be made available shortly, but due to copyright issues,
only to people who intend to participate.

An AishDas va'ad will be based on, though not necessarily the same
as, ve'adei mussar which existed during the height of the mussar
movement. Some modifications to the classic method as described by R'
Wolbe may be made to accomodate the changes in the world since, the
qitun hadoros, and our lives in a world that is not a self-contained
mussar yeshiva community.

Please contact me as soon as possible, so that you can have access to
the material as it becomes available.

-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

> Does anyone know whether Rav Untermann was matir using a microphone
> on Shabbos?

IIRC, Rav Unterman permitted the use of a transistorized microphone. Both
RMF and RYBS opposed this and all mics for different reasons which I
don't have on my fingertips right now.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

>I find these e-mails so interesting and eye opening.
>Is it in fact BaYom HoRishon or BaYom Rishon?

Shoulfn't it really be "be'yom rishon"?

BTW, I davened with Stolines this summer, and in Mi Komocho they have the 
intersting variant "Zeh Keli anu *vohmoru*."

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

On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:41:41PM -0400, RYGB wrote:
:> I find these e-mails so interesting and eye opening.
:> Is it in fact BaYom HoRishon or BaYom Rishon?

: Shoulfn't it really be "be'yom rishon"?

And why not "beyom rishon beshabbos", as in the intro to Shir shel Yom?

-mi

R' Daniel Eidensohn wrote <<< The issue of microphones as well as the
issue of electricity in general is something that can not be left to each
community to decide. Similarly the issue of conversion, aguna etc can not
tolerate idiosyncratic practices - no matter how well intended and
informed by precedent. >>>

Why?

Why is it that microphones in shul cannot be left to each community, but
giving aliyos to a mechalel Shabbos can be?

Why is it that electricity in general cannot be left to each community,
but Chalav Hacompanies, or opening cans on Shabbos can be?

Why can't we tolerate different practices on conversion and aguna? Didn't
Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai tolerate each others practices on gittin?

ON THE OTHER HAND (and it might be good to spin this off to a new thread,
if anyone is interested in responding) I must admit that I often feel
like a crybaby when I get involved in these discussions. I am torn
between a desire to understand what is going on behind the scenes when
the gedolim discuss these things among themselves, and the realization
that -- PERHAPS -- I should be treating them less as teachers and more as
parents.

Often a parent must say to the child, "Because I said so, that's why!" --
and not because the parent is engaged in a power struggle, but because
the reasons for the parent's decision is often beyond the child's grasp.
The child wants to learn the decision-making process for many good
reasons, and indeed he should, but there are always a few things that
will be forever beyond the child's reach.

The parent's (posek's) decision is sometimes based on a "feel" for the
issue, rather than a logical and mathematical approach, and this is not
always possible to define in words, even among the parents (poskim)
themselves. Which just frustrates the children (us) even more.

'Nuff said for now.

Waiting to see if anyone thinks this is worth continuing...
Akiva Miller

Hi

I heard today that a friend of mine who lives out of Eretz Yisroel will be
visiting this week. Being that he is an ovel and will be shliach Tzibbur
he will have to say Vetein Tal umatar. However when he returns from Eretz
Yisroel next week he has to say v'tein Brachah during chazarat HaShatz,
does he say the same in the quiet Shmoneh Esreh or does he continue to
say vetein tal umatar quietly thus making the two brochas differently??

kol Tuv
Shaul

In a message dated 10/10/2002 1:51:54 AM EDT, yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
> The issue of microphones as well as the issue of electricity in general is
> something that can not be  left to each community to decide. Similarly the
> issue of conversion, aguna etc can not tolerate idiosyncratic practices - no
> matter how well intended and informed by precedent. The Chasam Sofer's
> declaration of chodosh assur  is a prime example of this.Without a doubt he
> would have led the opposition to the use of microphones and he would have
> been the head of the agudas harabbanim. He was after all the one who told
> the Mahretz Chajes to relabel all rabbinic rules as doreissa so that they
> would be obeyed by those who ignored rabbinic rules.

> Rules of psak are only rules most of the time - they are not absolute rules
> to be applied in a mechanical fashion. In fact they can and are ignored when
> other factors are involved. See...

> While I can understand the concerns of a  local rabbi against being
> intimidated by the "big boys". If you look from the perspective of clal
> yisroel  - I don't see any alternatives concerning these issues.

So are when  we advcoate that allRabbonans are d'oraissos;
1) Where is our emes? Our ehrlichkeit?
2)  How can any one be a Zakein Mamre?

I'm sure the Rambam at least would be appalled by this methodolgy.  I am not 
sure about the other poskim.

You might as well say that any Halacha in any text is subject to the 
subjective whim or the Poseik and there are no objective criteria.  This is 
davka what Reform and Concservative have been complaining you cannot trust 
Orthodx Psak to be real Halachah, just the Obejctive "gefeel" of a poseik!

As far as the Chasam Sofer goes, you can argue the pritzus geder in his time 
was rampant.  Microphones on Shabbos were used in many "Orthodox" Afficliated 
shuls who viewed themselves as Halachic  

[Email #2 -mi]

In a message dated 10/10/2002 11:38:18 AM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Besides, if the process were CI based with no formal rules, than anyone
> can vote themselves into the CI and create a new Torah that your process
> would then endorse. It's still circular, and therefore still meaningless
> as a criterion.

and R. D. Eidensohnn:
> All of the above can be summarized as "there is no official rule which
> permits a rabbi or even a collection of rabbis to impose their view on
> others who have their own independent halachic authorities".

> My assertion is that historically halachic authority is that which halachic
> authorities exercise.

> While concerning most halachic issues one can safely assume that he can rely
> on the ruling of his local rabbi and the minhag of his community, in
> situations where others view it as undermining the values/situation of their
> communities they have the legitimate right to "attempt" to impose their
> views on others.

> The issue of microphones as well as the issue of electricity in general is
> something that can not be  left to each community to decide. Similarly the
> issue of conversion, aguna etc can not tolerate idiosyncratic practices - no
> matter how well intended and informed by precedent. The Chasam Sofer's
> declaration of chodosh assur  is a prime example of this....

Point is how dod you know when a rule is a rule and when an exceptoin
is an exception?

Micha's point is - reductio ad absurdum CI CAN be cirucular.

Let's say ein hachi nami for the sake of arguemnt

A) it does NOT have to be cirucular B) Since even formal rules have
many excpetions even the rule based model CAN become circular in certain
circles!

Ela mai? A Rules based system does not have to be ciruclrar because
exceptoins do NOT have to exist for rules to work most of the time

I claim CI works most of the time, too.

As far as eilu v'eilu goes, I'm unsure. Why aren't microphoens a classic
eilu v'eilu?

It seems that the average case of Minhag is indeed selecting from
different choices anyway - E.G. Tefillin of Rashi over Rabbeinu Tam.

But how come Brisk can reject the acceptance of Techiles not being
me'akeiv when virtually all of Klal Yisrael relied on that psak for
many generations? How is a meishan mefureshes that has been adapted as
normative subject to revision? Jsut how does that work?

[Email #3 -mi]

In a message dated 10/10/2002 11:24:08 AM EDT, yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
> Rav Bleich concludes p231-232 "The microphone question is indeed a highly
> technical matter and it is most unfortunate that the publicity surround
> this controversy tended to obfuscate the issues. The implication that
> negative rulings on such matters stem from a reactionary stance and that
> Orthodox rabbis are stubbornly opposed to all innovation is a lamentable
> distortion. In actuality, Judaism steadfastly refuses to sacrifice
> religious observance for the sake of convenience but is happy to welcome
> any scientific advance which satisfies the requirements of halacha."

Let me add this
IF a poseik were to say:
"microphones might be OK technically under certain conditions, but
lema'aseh we feel using them is a pirtzus geder subject to terrible abuse,
etc. therefore we strongly forbid it's use" that's an OK statment with me

It's quite another to say: Anyone relying upon Heter X is a mehcalle
Shabbes

I just had a case where a baale-habbaysis brought food to a Manhattan
shul on Shabbos and I asked a sh'eila about what to do with the food.
I was told that "bedi'eved" not to worry because after all there is an
eruv in Manhattan etc. IOW even though this Rav and I BOTH did not rely
upon the eruv we at least recognized that SOME Yiddn do.

WRT eilu v'eilu it is my understanding that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel
intermarried despite differing opionions re" Yibum {see Yevamos perek
aleph}"

Lich'roa THEIR eilu v'eilu allowed a toleration for competing opinions
re" mamzerus.

Why should Microphones be worse?
 
Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

>IIRC the name is Svan of Shvan, and people did not drop the first two
>letters. Instead, they, for some strange unkown reason, tacked on the
>last letter of the previous word "mora'h" (=month of).

I've been waiting for RSM to offer some linguistic insights; perhaps my 
mention will call him to action.

I always thought that Marheshvan was a letter-by-letter conversion of 
yerah shemini, using the conventions of letter changes between Hebrew and 
Aramaic.

Please correct or expand.

---------------------------
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:laser@ieee.org

--part1_37.2ee2733e.2adbad3d_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 10/11/2002 12:43:18 PM EDT, dbnet@zahav.net.il writes:
<snip>
> IMH"O there were those who did not accept the change of berakha, but 
> knew about the decision that on 'aseret yemei teshuva one said oseh 
> hashalom at the end of shemoneh esrei. They prefixed the Ha- to the 
> shalom of the oseh shalom bimromav at the end of shemoneh esrei and 
> also in kaddish. I believe that the existence of two nus'chaot of the 
> last b'rakha of shmoneh esrei indicates that the Ha-shalom was not 
> originally meant for oseh shalom bimromav.  ...
<snip>

Oseh Shalom Bimromov is a half-passuk from Iyyov
Oseh HAShalom Bimromov is a change to that passuk.

AIUI, the idea of chaing a passuk that has been incroproated into
Tfilha is farily odd, with the excpetoin of plurrzing {e.g. Refaie'ni
to refaie'nu}

Why change the nusach of a passuk by adding a "heh" to it?

FWIW, the same for Zetzal - Zecher TAddik Livracha to which some some
add vKaddosh. Again, why add to an existing half-passuk in Mishle?

Therefore the idea that the Hashalom was transposed somehow from Oseh
Hashalom bimroomv - while very possible - is also somewhat weak.

<<The nusach Bavel ends the shemoneh esrei with hamevarekh et 'amo Yisrael
bashalom. The last b'rakha in nusach Eretz Yisrael was Oseh hashalom.>>

As we see, the minhag Ashkenaz usually conforms to the Minhag of Eretz
Yisrael as opposed to the Minhag of Bavel. This is consistent with the
research on the origins of Minhag Ashkenaz. The Minhag in EY seems
to have been modified later - perhaps as the Ba'al Hamaor notes by the
Talmiddim of the Rif...

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 10/14/2002 7:41:17 AM EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> The parent's (posek's) decision is sometimes based on a "feel" for the
> issue, rather than a logical and mathematical approach, and this is not
> always possible to define in words, even among the parents (poskim)
> themselves. Which just frustrates the children (us) even more.
 
My own experience in parenting (fwiw) is that "because I'm the father
and I say so" should be used very,very sparingly and whenever possible
accompanied by a short or long term plan to "educate" the child on the
issues. Not doing so can be counterproductive not only as you noted
but because the child never learns how to make decisions on his own.
I often wonder if there is an "unwritten" body of halacha that deals
with how leaders approach such questions (eg how did chazal decide which
takannot to publicize reasons and which not)

KT
Joel Rich

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


[ 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         ]