Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 035

Monday, October 21 2002

• Re: Avodah V10 #33 -Prayer for another and arevut
• Re: 117: Dating; Gedolim
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• oseh shalom
• kaddish
• Gedolim...connections to the Heavens
• Re: Gedolim...connections to the Heavens
• Re: Gedolim...connections to the Heavens
• Atzas Gedolim
• Re: [Areivim] Daas Torah, Nevuah and Malchus
• Re: Atzas Gedolim
• Atzas Gedolim
• Re: Atzas Gedolim
• Re: Atzas Gedolim
• RE: Gedolim and their foresight (a.k.a. Gedolim and the Shoah or Gedolim and the Holocaust)
• RE: daas torah
• Re: Gedolim and their foresight (a.k.a. Gedolim and the Shoah or Gedolim and the Holocaust)
• Re: More on Klapping during Selach Lanu
• Re: kaddish
• Re: Da'at Torah on medical issues - RCS's experience

See the Baal HaTurim on the pasuk "Kaper l'amecha Yisroel" (D'varim
21,8).  See also the Rabbeinu B'achya there.  Based on these two sources
(as well as others), areivus is the reason why davening, saying kaddish
and giving t'zedakah has efficacy for the departed. Since the pasuk
"Kaper" goes to the chayim as well (see the Sifrei there), areivus is
why davening helps for our fellow Jews as well.

>Hello, Rabbi Bechhofer

>OK, I'll risk showing my ignorance again, but this is an area of particular
>interest to me.  I have several questions about what you wrote at the end
>of your note:

>>A variation on the theme is why R' Chaim zt"l sent questions to R'
>>Yitzchok Elchonon zt"l... you know the rest of the story.

>>To contend otherwise, methinks, is in direct contradiction of the Gemara
>>in BB, and skirts the issue of "Mai ahanei lan Rabbanan.

>Unfortunately, I don't know the rest of the story alluded to.  Can you fill
>me in.   Also, what is the issue of "Mai ahanei Ian Rabbanan"?

Since others may have the same questions:

1. Reb Chaim would not pasken major questions - he would send them to RYE 
and ask him to send back psakim without rationales. Reb chaim understood 
that RYE's psak would manifest Ratzon Hashem even though he could 
invariably dispute the lomdus. In our generation we witnessed a similar 
phenomenon with RMF zt"l.

"Mai ahanei lan Rabbanan" is one of the symptoms of an Apikorse described 
by the Gemara in Sanhedrin, someone who alway asks "Of what benefit are the 
Rabbi." The application here is not literal and was not meant to be.

>Earlier, you also wrote:

>>True, they are not infallible, but they are blessed with
>>far greater insight, and often with connections to the Heavens.

>I was under the impression that we don't believe that any human has
>"special connections."  We all stand before God with the capability of
>communicating with Him, only if we are both willing to put forth the
>effort.   No?

>This is not being asked facetiously, but in all seriousness.

No.

Torah gives its possessor a greater line of communication, although there 
are, of course, other factors, such as piety. See the Gemara in BB 12a.

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

On 18 Oct 2002 at 13:42, Arie Folger wrote:

> On Friday 18 October 2002 08:22, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
>> I was actually thinking about this yesterday as well in the context
>> of the Daf Yomi and the machlokes between the Maharsha and the
>> Maharshal over whether one would be permitted to disagree with the
>> head of the Sanhedrin if he stated his view first. If one holds that
>> it would be assur to disagree, it would seem to me that would be a
>> source for "da'as Torah" that far predates the last 2-3 generations.

> I don't follow daf yomi. Could you quote exact MM, I am very
> interested.

Sanhedrin 36a s"v v'lo sa'aneh in both the Maharsha and the Maharshal 
(Chochmas Shlomo). 

-- Carl

Any reason, besides lo plug, that we end the tefila "oseh shalom
bimeromav" with "ve'imru amen" even in the silent shemoneh esrei?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

1. Is anyone aware of a hakpadah that individuals saying kaddish for
their own losses not attend a shivah minyan so that everyone answers
only for the aveilim of that shiva? If not, should this be preferable?
2. For those who say kaddish and put the comma after ylamlich malchutei
- what is the translastion of the phrases?
3. Unrelated-does anyone know the source artscroll used for moving the
stop after kriat shma in the am?

KT
Joel Rich

"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> True, they [Gedolim] are not infallible, but they are blessed with
> far greater insight, and often with connections to the Heavens.

Connections to the Heavens? Exactly what do you mean? This strongly
implies supernatural powers. There is no Nevuah today. Similarly
there is no "connection" to Heaven other than one's own ability to
amass vast amounts of Torah knowledge with the concomitant component
of Yiras Shamayim. These two ingredients will give a Gadol an edge in
giving advice because the Torah informs HIS decisions better than it
does the common man. But to say there is some sort of supernatural
connection, seems to me, at least, to be an unprovable assumption at
best. 

There is no evidence what-so-ever that Man can pull himself above the
plane of nature into the plane of Heaven. The best Man can do and
what he should strive for is to try and evince from the Heavens it's
presence in the temporal world. By following G-d's holy directives
via the Mitzvos of his holy word, the Torah HaKedosha, man can in
effect "pull the heavens down to earth", for the benefit of Mankind. 

If this is what you mean by "connections to the Heavens", then I
accept it. But if you mean something supernatural, then I question
it.

HM

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> writes on Sun, 20 Oct 2002 08:09:18 -0700 
(PDT): 
> There is no evidence what-so-ever that Man can pull himself above the 
> plane of nature into the plane of Heaven. The best Man can do and 
> what he should strive for is to try and evince from the Heavens it's 
> presence in the temporal world. By following G-d's holy directives 
> via the Mitzvos of his holy word, the Torah HaKedosha, man can in 
> effect "pull the heavens down to earth", for the benefit of Mankind. 

> If this is what you mean by "connections to the Heavens", then I 
> accept it. But if you mean something supernatural, then I question 
> it. 

Gimmee a break - after 11 years sitting next to each other, you can rad my
mind and I can read yours. You know what I mean and I know what you mean.

BTW, I would like to remind the chevra, RHM is not quite as radical as
sometimes he seems (or would like to portray). His outstanding children
(including his son who b'ezras Hashem will be one of the gedolim someday)
di not grow up in a vacuum...

YGB 

sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu wrote:
> Gimmee a break - after 11 years sitting next to each other, you can
> read my mind 
> and I can read yours. You know what I mean and I know what you
> mean. 

I know what you mean. And you know my views better than anyone on the
list. But the way you phrased it left it open to interpretation. I
was simply trying to get you to clarify it for the Chevrah. Also, we
DO differ Hashkafically on the point I mentioned below don't we? I
remember discussing Ish HaHalakha with you (which is where my point
is derived from). I am in complete agreement with RYBS's Hashkafa on
that point. IIRC you differed with him.

> BTW, I would like to remind the chevra, RHM is not quite as radical as 
> sometimes he seems (or would like to portray). His outstanding children 
> (including his son who b'ezras Hashem will be one of the gedolim
> someday) di not grow up in a vacuum...

Thanks for your kind words about my children. I hope I had something
to do with the way they turned out. As for my son, you should not
minimize your own influence with him, which was considerable and IMHO
has a great deal to do with his accomplishments.

AS for my radicalism... MOI?  Radical?  Heaven forbid. I just like to
have fun on the internet.  :)

HM

 From RHM: 
> I know what you mean. And you know my views better than anyone on the
> list. But the way you phrased it left it open to interpretation. I
> was simply trying to get you to clarify it for the Chevrah. Also,
> we DO differ Hashkafically on the point I mentioned below don't we? I
> remember discussing Ish HaHalakha with you (which is where my point is
> derived from). I am in complete agreement with RYBS's Hashkafa on that
> point. IIRC you differed with him.

There are many areas in which I cannot accept RYBS, but they only relate
peripherally to the matter at hand.

RYBS was in full accord with the "mainstream" definition of the higher
intuition and divine inspiration afforded to talmidei chachomim of the
highest caliber (this is recorded in Nefesh HaRav, and I think there are
allusions to it in Ish HaHalachah as well) - how could he not be?! He
saw Reb Chaim (and Reb Moshe)!!! Why do you think the JO always quotes
RYBS when they discuss Daas Torah?!

YGB 

In message , I Kasdan <Ikasdan@erols.com> writes
>Compare this to Rabbi Weinberger's statement that "Gedolai Yisroel possess
>a special endowment or capacity to penetrate reality, recognize the facts
>as they really are and apply halachic principles. This endowment is a
>form of ruach hakodesh, as it were, bordering, if only remotely on the
>periphery of prophecy."

Just an observation (that people may not agree with) that I wanted
to throw into the discussion. One of the things that I have become
increasingly convinced of, from observation of ordinary people (not
gedolim, ordinary people) is that the portion of the brain that deals with
what I am going to call "macro thinking" and the portion of the brain
that deals with "micro thinking" are not the same - and that an ability
in one does not seem to influence or create an ability in the other.

I have met enough people to take the extremes in each case where say:
a) when it comes to individual personal relationships, decisions and ways
of responding, a given person is thoughtful, astute, and well "wise",
and yet, get them on to discussing something macro like politics or wider
considerations, and you suddenly get the most ill thought out positions
(often a pure parroting of what can be heard on the radio/TV/newspaper)
without any of the analysis, thought, sensitivity or, dare I say
it, caring that they would apply to any individual circumstance;
or alternatively

b) I have met people who can give you the most sophisticated and accurate
analysis of the global situation, the responses of various world bodies,
political/economic forces etc, but have absolutely no clue why their
spouse has left them, their children and neighbours won't talk to them
and their personal life is a mess.

Obviously these are extremes, but it has been something that has puzzled
me for a while, why there seems to be very limited crossover - and that
strengths in one area do not necessarily relate or link to strengths in
the other.

Now one of the things I just wanted to point out, without getting into
the Daas Torah debate too much, is that most of the cases when people
talk about going to a gadol and about Daas Torah today -they are talking
about micro decisions - ie what individual decisions is right for them
- chinuch, parnassa, medical choices etc. Of course, micro decisions
are influenced by the macro (eg if somebody thinks a particular method
of learning is destructive on a wider political basis, they are never
going to recommend a bochur to go there, whether or not it might seem
as if that might be the best approach for that particular bochur).
In addition, most halachic judgements that a posek is called upon to
make today are micro judgements - even if it involves applying macro
principles to the micro, but it rarely has more than micro effect (the
exception, I would say, is when an individual teshuva or pronouncement
is published in an accessible way, where it may end up having a macro
effect well beyond the micro effect on the particular questioner).

The judgement about whether or not to leave Europe on a community wide
scale is, however, a macro judgement (it is a judgement regarding the
impact of a whole range of vast political forces), similarly the judgement
that RYBS particularly in known to have said was for the military not
the rabbonim, that of what to do vis a vis security and the shtachim,
is a macro judgement.

You could hold a position (I am not necessarily suggesting you should)
that gedolim have special insight, Daas Torah, siyata d'shmaya or
whatever, in either micro or macro thinking, without necessarily holding
that they have it in the other way of thinking (or that some have it in
one area and some in another).

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu wrote:
> RYBS was in full accord with the "mainstream" definition of the higher
> intuition and divine inspiration afforded to talmidei chachomim of the
> highest caliber (this is recorded in Nefesh HaRav, and I think there are
> allusions to it in Ish HaHalachah as well) - how could he not be?! He
> saw Reb Chaim (and Reb Moshe)!!!

I did not read Nefesh HaRav. But IIUC in Ish Halacha he rejects any
kind of supernatural investment in Man B'Zman HaZeh. Terms like:
"higher intuition and divine inspiration" need to be better defined.

Are you talking about Ruach HaKodesh? And if you DO mean Ruach
HaKodesh... Is this what you beleive RSZA based his advice to you on?

I accept that it is within the realm of possibility for Man to achieve
Ruach HaKodesh B'Zman HaZeh. But even that needs to be better defined. Is
it a supernatural phenomenon or is it a natural phenomenon having to do
with an insight developed through a high level of Yiras Shamayim combined
with Torah knowledge?

> Why do you think the JO always quotes RYBS when they discuss Daas Torah?!

They do?  ...Always?

HM

RYGB:
> JJB:
> Occasionally things come up that I feel that I cannnot pass over in silence, 
> lest it be said that shetikah k'hodo'oh. Two came up in this issue of Areivim: 
I wouldn't expect you to be modeh, but if you feel you must respond...

> 2. Atzas Gedolim: 
>> You hold by the Daas Torah point of view.  Some of us don't.  We don't 
>> mean it personally as a slur on anyone else.  That you take it personally 
>> is sad, but I can't help that. 
 
> Torah is not medicine nor accounting. Torah is Toras Chaim, and Chacham
> adif me'Navi. True, they are not infallible, but they are blessed with

"Chacham adif me'navi" in what circumstances? In legislation, no
question. In ability to give non-Torah-related advice? How?

I don't see it. I checked my CD-ROM of Rishonim (and some Acharonim)
on the Gemara, and it's used exclusively in legislative contexts: extra
stringency in hilchot mikva (Tos YT to Mikvaot 3:1 d.h. v'chaser afilu
qartuv); ability to legislate through logic rather than through just that
which God happened to tell him (Ri Migash cited by Shita in BB 12a);
superiority of the subjectivity of the posek over the objectivity of
the navi (intro to Avnei Miluim).

The Talmud is littered with cases where such comparatives are given,
and they are clearly delimited in scope.

> far greater insight, and often with connections to the Heavens.

Which all sounds rather like the chasidicization of the yeshiva
world.

> Let me clarify that this is NOT a Charedi viewpoint. The Chardei
> viewpoint may well veer towards infallibility. This is a minimal
> Torah-true viewpoint (Prof. Kaplan u'd'imyhu notwithstanding - they
> have agendas, and not Torah agendas).

And yet, your choice of phraseology reveals an agenda. The phrase
"Torah-true" was an invention of Agudah, to differentiate themselves
from the OU/RIETS types.

It may be tempting to bolster your position by defining your parameters
so narrowly that only _your_ arguments are legitimate, but it also tends
to restrict your audience.

> This is why when I was at Sha'alvim, the Rosh Yeshiva, no Da'as Torah
> man, sent tme to R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt"l to determine what I
> should do with my future.

Were you really undecided about going into some aspect of rabbanut?
Or perhaps they thought you would be persuaded to become a kli kodesh if
the Gadol Hador talked with you about it? What were the circumstances
of your question?

> A variation on the theme is why R' Chaim zt"l sent questions to R'
> Yitzchok Elchonon zt"l... you know the rest of the story.

Actually, I don't.
 
> To contend otherwise, methinks, is in direct contradiction of the Gemara
> in BB, and skirts the issue of "Mai ahanei lan Rabbanan."

I don't see it, given what the Rishonim say about that gemara in BB.
Your interpretation is the one which appears novel, so far.

KT.
   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

At 05:09 PM 10/20/02 -0400, Jonathan Baker wrote:
>RYGB:
>> JJB:
>> Occasionally things come up that I feel that I cannnot pass over in 
> silence,
>> lest it be said that shetikah k'hodo'oh. Two came up in this issue of 
> Areivim:
>I wouldn't expect you to be modeh, but if you feel you must respond...

>> 2. Atzas Gedolim:
>>> You hold by the Daas Torah point of view.  Some of us don't.  We don't
>>> mean it personally as a slur on anyone else.  That you take it personally
>>> is sad, but I can't help that.

>> Torah is not medicine nor accounting. Torah is Toras Chaim, and Chacham
>> adif me'Navi. True, they are not infallible, but they are blessed with

>"Chacham adif me'navi" in what circumstances? In legislation, no
>question. In ability to give non-Torah-related advice? How?

>I don't see it. I checked my CD-ROM of Rishonim (and some Acharonim)
>on the Gemara, and it's used exclusively in legislative contexts: extra
>stringency in hilchot mikva (Tos YT to Mikvaot 3:1 d.h. v'chaser afilu
>qartuv); ability to legislate through logic rather than through just that
>which God happened to tell him (Ri Migash cited by Shita in BB 12a);
>superiority of the subjectivity of the posek over the objectivity of
>the navi (intro to Avnei Miluim).

See the Ramban there, and the Bigdei Shesh ad loc.

>The Talmud is littered with cases where such comparatives are given,
>and they are clearly delimited in scope.

>> far greater insight, and often with connections to the Heavens.

>Which all sounds rather like the chasidicization of the yeshiva
>world.

Nonsense. You are stereotyping. I find the word "littered" very distasteful 
in conjunction with Talmud. But several Gemaros come to mind, such as that 
with RCBD and RYBZ at the end of one of the perakim in Berachos, and the 
similar one about the children of R' Chiya, etc.

>> Let me clarify that this is NOT a Charedi viewpoint. The Chardei
>> viewpoint may well veer towards infallibility. This is a minimal
>> Torah-true viewpoint (Prof. Kaplan u'd'imyhu notwithstanding - they
>> have agendas, and not Torah agendas).

>And yet, your choice of phraseology reveals an agenda. The phrase
>"Torah-true" was an invention of Agudah, to differentiate themselves
>from the OU/RIETS types.

So far as I recall, it is a phrase that comes from RSRH, that's me - TIDE!!!

>It may be tempting to bolster your position by defining your parameters
>so narrowly that only _your_ arguments are legitimate, but it also tends
>to restrict your audience.

So be it.

>> This is why when I was at Sha'alvim, the Rosh Yeshiva, no Da'as Torah
>> man, sent tme to R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt"l to determine what I
>> should do with my future.

>Were you really undecided about going into some aspect of rabbanut?
>Or perhaps they thought you would be persuaded to become a kli kodesh if
>the Gadol Hador talked with you about it? What were the circumstances
>of your question?

Punkt fakehert!!!

RSZA decided I should go to college even though I did not eant to!

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

At 12:40 PM 10/20/02 -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
>Are you talking about Ruach HaKodesh? And if you DO mean Ruach
>HaKodesh... Is this what you believe RSZA based his advice to you on?

The opposite:

Tzaddik gozer v'HKB"H mekayyem - Since RSZA with his Chochmas ha'Torah
ruled that this is what I should do, this became Ratzon Hashem. See my
Eilu va'Eilu essay. In case you forgot it :-) ...

The Chachamim intuit the emes with their vast Chochmas ha'Torah, and -
generally, they are not infallible, so not always - Hashem follows along.
This is part of "Lo ba'shamayim hee." See BM 59a-b.

KT,
YGB

BS"D
Mezuzos, Machlokos and Eilu va'Eilu Divrei Elokim Chayim
Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
The Halachic Problem
[... Much snipped, this article has been on Avodah multiple times already.
See <http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/eilu.htm> -mi]

Torah Shapes the World

HaGaon HaRav Tzadok HaKohen of Lublin zt"l writes (Tzidkas HaTzaddik 90. 
See also Bnei Yissaschar, Chodesh Nissan 4): "The Torah is the map of the 
world . . . and so is Yisroel (since they and the Torah are one. This is 
because we know that the illumination of Jewish souls is the illumination 
of the Torah, as it is said that Yisroelis an acrostic: Yesh Shishim Riboh 
Osios LaTorah [there are six hundred thousand letters to the Torah]). The 
Jews in each generation, therfore, comprise the current map of the world. 
New phenomena in the Jewish nation in any generation will create 
corresponding new phenomena in the structure of the world."

This idea is not solely a Chassidic one. HaGaon HaRav Eliyahu Meir
Bloch zt"l (Shiurei Da'as, "Darka shel Torah", chap. 5) writes: "When
the Torah was given to Yisroel, the characteristics of its nature were
imparted to the Torah Sages. They, through their thought, determine the
characteristics of nature, which follows the logic and secrets of their
Torah. They decide the reality of Torah, and the reality of the Creation
linked to the Torah."

What is the cause, and what is the effect? The cause is not reality, which
demands the effect of figuring out relevant Halachos. On the contrary,
the cause is Halacha, and the effect is the reality of the world.

Let us note Reb Elya Meir's caveat: "If it is in line with the logic
and secrets of the Torah . . ." Reb Tzadok elsewhere (ibid., 115) makes
a similar remark: "When one is mechadesh a matter in Torah, one must not
do so with any negi'a [vested personal interest] in his heart, i.e., that
he wants the matter turn out so, for the sake of his pride, or to argue
on another, etc. One's chiddush must stem solely from one's yearning to
know the truth. If a person follows these guidelines, then even if he
makes a mistake his words are words of Torah and divrei Elokim chaim."

Not every person under every circumstance can claim to generate divrei
Elokim chaim. Only people whose thoughts and conclusions meet these
criteria are qualified to create divrei Elokim chaim. If these criteria
are met, however, even a mistake (in Talmudic terms, a hava amina)
can be considered divrei Elokim chaim!

[... Much more deleted. -mi]

> Last week I posted that I think that rabbonim before WWII (and before
> WWI) where reflexively opposed to leaving Eastern Europe, even though the
> writing was on the wall. RCS complained that by the time the writing was
> on the wall (in his opinion in the late 1930s) immigration to Britain,
> US and Israel had been severely curtailed, so it is no wonder rabbonim did
> not investigate those areas as possible destination of a mass emigration
> from Eastern Europe...

With all of the discussion on this issue, why has the Gra been ignored?
Didn't he send a garin over here to Eretz Yisrael in the late 1800's to
build a Jewish community in preparation for Moshiachs ben Yosef/David?
It doesn't seem that he was intent on keeping everybody in Europe.

---Rena

RYGB
> Torah is not medicine nor accounting. Torah is Toras Chaim, and Chacham
> adif me'Navi. True, they are not infallible, but they are blessed with
> far greater insight, and often with connections to the Heavens.

> Let me clarify that this is NOT a Charedi viewpoint. The Chardei viewpoint
> may well veer towards infallibility. This is a minimal Torah-true
> viewpoint (Prof. Kaplan u'd'imyhu notwithstanding - they have agendas,
> and not Torah agendas).

The definition of minimal Torah-true viewpoint has been greatly expanded
here on avoda and areivim (even beyond the 13 ikarim, about which we have
had debates) - something that has happened in the past (I think of issues
such as criticism of avot, use of allegory, etc, where, regardless of
how one views the particular issue, the notion that it becomes a defining
part of a minimal Torah -true viewpoint is quite radical).

While daas torah is one viewpoints, and few would deny chachamim
insight - the notion of chacham adif minavi as implying connection
to the heavens is not simple pshat..(I wonder if RYGB thinks that the
rambam would concur)

One could as easily (and as correctly) say that those who criticize Prof
Kaplan have agendas (and not Torah agendas..)

Meir SHinnar

On Monday 21 October 2002 18:03, Mishpachat Freedenberg wrote:
> With all of the discussion on this issue, why has the Gra been ignored?
> Didn't he send a garin over here to Eretz Yisrael in the late 1800's to
> build a Jewish community in preparation for Moshiachs ben Yosef/David?
> It doesn't seem that he was intent on keeping everybody in Europe.

My goodness, RR, you hit the nail on the head. The Gra was a tremendous,
well, we know about him, no need to find epiphets. In his days mass
migration was even harder and pogroms seemed even more inevitable than
later on, once political enlightenment had given rights and respects to
other people but not to the Eastern European Jews.

However, even the Gra could not inspire our rabbonim and our elders of the
turn of the 19th->20th centuries. Thus, the idea of mass migration needn't
have been pasul minehu bei, and the idea of immigrating in sufficient
numbers to Israel didn't seem like a major problem to the talmidei haGra,
however, even so, the entire enterprise was deemed beyond the pale for
the rabbonim of 1890-1920.

The reasons, of course, are fear of hasqalah and fear of Zionism and
other movements which where then predominantly detrimental to people's
spiritual health. However, in the excerpts I quoted I showed that there
where rabbonim who saw the writing on the wall and didn't consider the
dangers of America and of Zionism worse. For those latter rabbonim, it
was possible to kasher both sufficiently, but many where against trying.

Kol tuv,
Arie Folger

R' Michael Poppers asked <<< Why should I 'klap' on Friday morning but
not on Friday afternoon...>>>

R' Micha Berger wrote <<< IIUC, the din is in the day. IOW, Friday
afternoon yes, because it is not a "day without tachanun".>>>

I'm not sure whether you're asking or answering, but in any case, perhaps
the Mishna Brura 267:1 is relevant, where he says that if someone eats
bread on Friday afternoon, he does not say Al Naharos Bavel, but rather
Shir Hamaalos.

Akiva Miller

On 20 Oct 2002 at 12:27, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> 1. Is anyone aware of a hakpadah that individuals saying kaddish for
> their own losses not attend a shivah minyan so that everyone answers
> only for the aveilim of that shiva? If not, should this be preferable?

I've never heard of such a hakpada but it would seem to shtim with 
the hakpada that many people have to have only person saying each 
Kaddish in shul.

-- Carl
http://www.bereshitsoftware.com/kdoshim/index.htm

RCS wrote:
> I'll tell you a more amazing one although I'm going to leave out some
> of the details.
<snip>
> We went to R. Binyomin Fisher (who is well known in Yerushalayim for
> answering medical shailos).
<snip>
> After a week he said to us, "I have spoken with every doctor in the
> world who is an expert on your case - and so have you. They all know
> you and they all respect you and whatever you decide, there will be
> some who will say you were right, and some who will say you were
> wrong. I don't have an answer for you. Go ask Da'as Torah."

> So we got in the car, drove to Bnei Brak and went to see Rav Chaim
> Kanievsky.<snip> He
> asked me what the problem was, and I told him about the doctors'
> divisions and what Rav Fisher had told us. He told me: "If it's a
> safek whether it will help or not, do it. If it's a safek whether it
> will hurt or not, don't do it."

<snip>[RCS wrote how they decided to do nothing]
> Best decision we ever made. Bli ayin hara he has only improved since.
> Would we have made that decision without speaking with Rav Chaim? I
> think we would have been too scared to tell the doctors no....

A couple of months ago I wrote beshem rav Bleich's understanding of
a Pit'hei Tshuvah on hil. refuah that the function of the rav (in
the PT he is designated as gadol sheba'ir) is to counterbalance the
involvment and thus emotional investment the doctors have in the case,
an investment which prevents them sometimes from seeing the woods of
statistics because their vision is obstructed by trees of treatment (to
use a known metaphore). The gadol sheba'ir supposedly knows statistics and
is supposed to do exactly the work that rabbonim Fisher and Kanievsky did.

When I wrote that a few months ago RCS thought that his story (which
wasn't told at the time) showed a different role for da'at Torah. Nu,
I respectfully disagree. IMHO the description of that role by rav Bleich
is exactly the same as the one in RCS's experience. Gottzaidank, the rov
(as in statistical majority) was with him, or rather, he was in the
rov. May God who said "Ani <haShem> rofekha" bring about a complete
recovery to RCS's son Barukh Yossef.

Arie Folger

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


[ 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         ]