Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 085

Tuesday, January 7 2003

• Fwd: Tehillim Ha'Chida
• Melo Kol Ha'aretz Kevodo
• Animals suffering
• Heavy-hearted Paroh
• Hichbad'ti... ve'es lev avadav...
• Re: RMF's mechitza psak
• Re: RMF's mechitza psak
• Re: RMF's mechitza psak
• Re: Mesaye'a
• Re: Mesaye'a
• eye color
• Re: meat grown after it's dead
• Is Christianity Avodah Zara?
• Re: Is Christianity Avodah Zara?
• Re: entering a church
• Re: zmirot
• zemirot
• Re: Tehillim ha'Chida
• Re: "The G'dolim" don't exist. MM

From: "ediena18" <ediena18@rogers.com>
>Regarding YGB's request to speak to some experts regarding Tehillim 
>Chida.  I spoke to Rav Shlomo Miller this evening and Rav Matisyahu 
>Solomon and both told me that in their opinion the only segula is to 
>recite Tehillim as Dovid Hamelech wrote them.  They were not aware of any 
>mekoros for this tehillim chida and felt it was kind of ridiculous.

>Mani

An important issue of disagreement between the Gra and the Ba'al HaTanya
was regarding "melo kol ha'aretz kevodo". From what little I understand
of this dispute, the Gra claimed that this refers to hashgachas Hashem
while the BhT claimed that that it refers to nitzotzos of Hashem.
The Gra considered this to be apikorsus.

RMM Kasher in his milu'im to Torah Shelemah, Parshas Shemos claims that
R' Chaim Volozhiner in his Nefesh HaChaim explains this issue according
to the BhT. As I read this I thought, "Can't be!" Can anyone with more
understanding shed light on this? Did RCV follow the BhT against the Gra?

As an aside, I heard (perhaps incorrectly) that the Lubavitcher Rebbe said
that he thought the Gra's shitah made more sense but that he was obligated
to follow the BhT.

Gil Student

The concept of suffering has been extensively analysed in the medical
and bio-ethical literature. Much of this work was done by Cassel;
in brief, the relevant point is that there is a distinction between
pain and suffering. Pain is value neutral and can even be a positive
experience. Suffering requires interpretation of pain. Thus, for
example, childbirth is pain but nor suffering whereas chronic back
pain is suffering because it is purposeless and is so perceived. If
so, animals cannot suffer for they cannot judge or interpret pain. The
question why animals suffer pain is of a different magnitude of impact
than the one of why they undergo suffering. Reference - can start with
http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/lit-med/lit-med-db/webdocs/webdescrips/cassell905-des-.html

M. Levin

I think that the following is quite fascinating:
http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Eparasha/vaera/ros.html

I sometimes get "ask the rabbi" type questions. I am not sure if it's due
to my role running the web here, or my helping out with the scj(m) FAQ.

I could use help answering this one.

TIA!
-mi

: Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 20:37:22 EDT
: From: "Robert_a_miller" <robert_a_miller@mymailstation.com>
: To: Micha@aishdas.org
: Subject: Torah Question---Parashas Bo

: Dear Micha:
: In 10:1, the heart of Pharaoh and the hearts of his servants are
: announced to have been hardened
: In 10:7, the servants try to get Pharaoh to give in to reality
: So in what respect were the servants' hearts hardened?
: Thanks for your help with this.
: Sincerely, Bob Miller

>RMF's rationale for the verse in Zechariah (ch. 12) is that at the
>hesped for Mashiach ben Yosef in the time of the Geulah, there will
>be separate seating - and today, when we still have a yetzer hara,
>lo col shekein?

That is not his rationale. See the teshuvah in Iggeros Moshe, Orach
Chaim 1:39.

>So no, it's not just in synagogue, which is why there has to be a
>particular heter for kiruv situations.

See his paragraph beginning "Ve-hineh yesh makom lomar". RMF says
that the proof from the Gemara (Gemara, not Zechariah) is that they
made a change in the Beis HaMikdash to avoid kalos rosh. Perhaps the
issur de-oraisa only applies in the BHM and not in shuls. To this he
responds that since the (rabbinic)institution of kedushah to a shul
(mikdash me'at) is because a "davar she-bi-kdushah" is said in it, which
implies that this "davar she-bi-kdushah" (e.g. kaddish, kedushah) itself
has a de-oraisa kedushah. If so, RMF reasons, since it has a de-oraisa
(mikdash) kedushah then the issur should be the same as in the BHM.
The de-oraisa is clearly just for during davening.

Rabbi Alan J. Yuter (YU and JTS alumnus) wrote an article in Judaism
(28:1, 1979) titled "Mehizah, Midrash and modernity; a study in religious
rhetoric". His main point was to argue against Da'as Torah but he used
the issue of mechitzah as a basis. In the article he critiques RYBS's
and RMF's teshuvos about mechitzah.

He has two main criticisms of RMF's teshuvah. The first is that while
the simchas beis ha-shoevah had a mechitzah, there is no indication that
other events that took place in the ezras nashim of the BHM -- e.g. the
Kohen Gadol's leining on Yom Kippur and the melech's at hakhel -- had
a mechitzah. I don't know enough to respond to this criticism.

His second is that you cannot learn de-oraisa prohibitions from navi.
To the second, one should first note that RMF addressed this in his
teshuvah in the paragraph starting "ve-hineh etzem ha-din". Furthermore,
this issue is extensively discussed by the Maharatz Chajes in his Toras
Nevi'im, Ma'amar Toras Nevi'im Divrei Kabbalah. This case would probably
fall into the category discussed there in chapter 4. However, even more
basic, there are explicit gemaras that support this. See, for example,
Sanhedrin 22b: "gemara gemiri lah ve-asa Yechezkel ve-ismechah a-kera".

Also, I think it is unfortunate that R' Eliezer Silver's defense of
mechitzah is rarely quoted. The transcript of his deposition in defense
of mechitzah is included as an appendix to R' Aharon Rakeffet-Rothkoff's
The Silver Years. Basically, R' Eliezer Silver points out that a
mechitzah was made for the Ezras Nashim in the BHM but women were rarely
allowed in the Ezras Yisrael (he deals with the exceptions). Shuls today
have a din of Ezras Yisrael so women should not be allowed in main area,
i.e. the men's sections.

Gil Student

RGS:
> JJB: 
> >RMF's rationale for the verse in Zechariah (ch. 12) is that at the
> >hesped for Mashiach ben Yosef in the time of the Geulah, there will
> >be separate seating - and today, when we still have a yetzer hara,
> >lo col shekein?

> That is not his rationale.  See the teshuvah in Iggeros Moshe, Orach Chaim
> 1:39.

But he cites the Gemara at Sukkah 51b, and it *is* the Gemara's rationale.
Does he reject the Gemara? He doesn't seem to.

Furthermore, he seems to construe an issur d'oraita of hacol bichtav from
I Chron, which is not clear to me how it can be an issur d'oraita - it's
not brought down in the Rambam, it's pretty clearly descriptive not pre-
scriptive, and so it seems to be treated elsewhere in the Gemara.

So he's inventing, apparently, two issurim d'oraita, one from an inference
from a prophecy, one from a description in Divrei Hayamim. It's calling
it d'oraisa that seems to be the invention in the Zechariah side, and
construing an issur at all that seems to be the invention on the Divrei
Hayamim side.

> >So no, it's not just in synagogue, which is why there has to be a
> >particular heter for kiruv situations.

> See his paragraph beginning "Ve-hineh yesh makom lomar".  RMF says that the
> proof from the Gemara (Gemara, not Zechariah) is that they made a change in

But the gemara cites Zechariah to *be* the verse that is the asmachta
on which the issur rests. Look. The gemara argues:
  1) (braisa) they made the tikun gadol to avoid kalus rosh.
  2) but what about "hacol bichtav" (I Chron)? (implying that any plans
     for the BHM"K have to be darshenable from the Torah)
  3) Rav: they found the passage in Zechariah - if they'll be seated sep-
     arately in Acharit Hayamim at a funeral, now with kalus rosh, lo col
     shekein?

So he cites the Gemara, and that gemara depends on Zechariah. But AFAICT,
either the Gemara doesn't work, or hacol bichtav doesn't mean "everything
from the Torah" - in which case it can't be d'oraita. And the way
Rashi and the other meforshim on I Chron explain hacol bichtav, that
Shmuel darshened out the plans, the Gemara's argument can't work -
because Zechariah postdates Shmuel, so his psukim didn't exist yet -
not to mention, that we don't darshen halachos from non-Torah psukim.

> the Beis HaMikdash to avoid kalos rosh.  Perhaps the issur de-oraisa only
> applies in the BHM and not in shuls.  To this he responds that since the
> (rabbinic)institution of kedushah to a shul (mikdash me'at) is because a
> "davar she-bi-kdushah" is said in it, which implies that this "davar
> she-bi-kdushah" (e.g. kaddish, kedushah) itself has a de-oraisa kedushah.
> If so, RMF reasons, since it has a de-oraisa (mikdash) kedushah then the
> issur should be the same as in the BHM.  The de-oraisa is clearly just for
> during davening.

But I can't agree with his attribution of "d'oraisa" for the original
rule.

> Rabbi Alan J. Yuter (YU and JTS alumnus) wrote an article in Judaism (28:1,
> 1979) titled "Mehizah, Midrash and modernity; a study in religious rhetoric"
 ...
> He has two main criticisms of RMF's teshuvah.  The first is that while the
> simchas beis ha-shoevah had a mechitzah, there is no indication that other
> events that took place in the ezras nashim of the BHM -- e.g. the Kohen
> Gadol's leining on Yom Kippur and the melech's at hakhel -- had a mechitzah.
> I don't know enough to respond to this criticism.

Well, the passage from Zechariah, as explained by the Gemara, takes care
of this, if not at a d'oraisa level.

> His second is that you cannot learn de-oraisa prohibitions from navi.  To
> the second, one should first note that RMF addressed this in his teshuvah in
> the paragraph starting "ve-hineh etzem ha-din".  Furthermore, this issue is

  a) not convincingly
  b) don't you think R' Yuter read that paragraph? He evidently wasn't
     convinced either.

> extensively discussed by the Maharatz Chajes in his Toras Nevi'im, Ma'amar
> Toras Nevi'im Divrei Kabbalah.  This case would probably fall into the
> category discussed there in chapter 4.  However, even more basic, there are
> explicit gemaras that support this.  See, for example, Sanhedrin 22b:
> "gemara gemiri lah ve-asa Yechezkel ve-ismechah a-kera".

Which turns RMF's argument from the gemara in Sukkah on its head. That
case is arguing how could they have done this law without a verse - they
had it from Moshe, and then Yechezkel came along and found a verse from
the Torah as a basis from which to darshen. So it was always followed.

In this case, it was a "tikun gadol", rabbinic legislation in the middle
of Bayis Rishon. It wasn't something that was followed dur- ing the
hundreds of years of the Mishkan and the early part of Bayis Rishon.
The gemara in Sukkah argues that one needs a verse to over- ride hacol
bichtav, and uses Zechariah to do so - but Zechariah post- dated the
Tikun Gadol.

It seems more likely that the rabbis used their legislative power to
make the tikun gadol. The Gemara then asked, but doesn't rabbinic
legislation need a verse to back it up? It offered Zechariah as a proof
that separate seating is a good thing, and said QED. But it's not even
a real asmachta, unless we can make asmachtas from navi.

Which leads me to think that the Gemara itself realized that hacol bichtav
wasn't a real Torah issur, so it didn't need a real asmachta to back up
the legislation which added the gezuztra.

So RMF's attribution of d'oraisa to this rule still seems forced,
hyperbolic, polemic.

> Also, I think it is unfortunate that R' Eliezer Silver's defense of
> mechitzah is rarely quoted.  The transcript of his deposition in defense of
> mechitzah is included as an appendix to R' Aharon Rakeffet-Rothkoff's The
> Silver Years.  Basically, R' Eliezer Silver points out that a mechitzah was
> made for the Ezras Nashim in the BHM but women were rarely allowed in the
> Ezras Yisrael (he deals with the exceptions).  Shuls today have a din of
> Ezras Yisrael so women should not be allowed in main area, i.e. the men's
> sections.

I think that may be counterproductive in current religious dialogue.
It emphasizes the idea that women are generally unwelcome guests in
the synagogue - but current trends (at least in the MO world) encourage
women's synagogue attendance.

For those in the RW world, where the women are segregated in a separate
room with a curtained glass window and maybe a vent or two to allow
sound to pass, the message may be different.

Jon Baker wrote:
>RMF's rationale for the verse in Zechariah (ch. 12) is that at the
>hesped for Mashiach ben Yosef in the time of the Geulah, there will
>be separate seating - and today, when we still have a yetzer hara,
>lo col shekein?

There are two steps in this issue.  One is the Gemara's step from Zechariah
to the BhM.  The second is from the BhM to shuls.  RMF only creates the
second step.  The first step was done by the Gemara and any criticism you
may have of it should be directed at the amoraim and not at RMF.

>Furthermore, he seems to construe an issur d'oraita of hacol bichtav from
>I Chron, which is not clear to me how it can be an issur d'oraita - it's
>not brought down in the Rambam, it's pretty clearly descriptive not pre-
>scriptive, and so it seems to be treated elsewhere in the Gemara.

No.  The issur de'oraisa is from Shemos 25:9 which implies that the mikdash
and its utensils must be made based solely on nevuah (see Shu"t Chasam Sofer
OC 208 sv u-mishum hachi (I know it's hard to find; sorry) on this).  How do
we know that the second BhM was built based on nevuah?  That is from "ha-kol
bi-chsav mi-yad Hashem" (see Rashi on the Gemara).

>So he's inventing, apparently, two issurim d'oraita, one from an inference
>from a prophecy, one from a description in Divrei Hayamim.

No. He is claiming that the Gemara inferred an issur de'oraisa from a
narrative in navi, something not uncommon.

>But the gemara cites Zechariah to *be* the verse that is the asmachta on
>which the issur rests.  Look.  The gemara argues:
>  1) (braisa) they made the tikun gadol to avoid kalus rosh.
>  2) but what about "hacol bichtav" (I Chron)? (implying that any plans
>for the BHM"K have to be darshenable from the Torah)
>  3) Rav: they found the passage in Zechariah - if they'll be seated sep-
>arately in Acharit Hayamim at a funeral, now with kalus rosh, lo col
>shekein?

The Gemara learns that the BhM itself was changed to avoid kalus rosh.  But
if the plans of the BhM have to be based on nevuah -- and were, as we see in
I Chron -- how could they make the change to the BhM?  They learned that it
was an halachically required change based on Zechariah.

Zechariah is not the SOURCE of such an halachah.  Rather, we learn from the
narrative a presumption of such an halachah (as is done in Sanhedrin 22b and
other places).  But of what status is that halachah.  Is it an oral halachah
of biblical (i.e. Sinai) origins or is it derabbanan?

RMF answers that since there is a biblical obligation to build the BhM
according to the plans given al pi nevuah, any change must also be based on
a biblical prohibition.  If the prohibition were only of rabbinic origin
then it would not have the strength to override the biblical obligation to
build the BhM according to nevuah-based plans.

>>He has two main criticisms of RMF's teshuvah.  The first is that while the
>>simchas beis ha-shoevah had a mechitzah, there is no indication that other
>>events that took place in the ezras nashim of the BHM -- e.g. the Kohen
>>Gadol's leining on Yom Kippur and the melech's at hakhel -- had a
mechitzah.
>>I don't know enough to respond to this criticism.
>
>Well, the passage from Zechariah, as explained by the Gemara, takes care of
>this, if not at a d'oraisa level.

I don't understand your comment here.

>>His second is that you cannot learn de-oraisa prohibitions from navi.  To
>>the second, one should first note that RMF addressed this in his teshuvah
in
>>the paragraph starting "ve-hineh etzem ha-din".  Furthermore, this issue
is
>  a) not convincingly
>  b) don't you think R' Yuter read that paragraph?  He evidently wasn't
>convinced either.

a) RMF did not include all of the necessary background information to fully
appreciate his reasoning.
b) I assume he did but it might not have been at the forefront of his
thoughts when he wrote his critique.

>It seems more likely that the rabbis used their legislative power to
>make the tikun gadol.  The Gemara  then asked, but doesn't rabbinic
>legislation need a verse to back it up?  It offered Zechariah as a
>proof that separate seating is a good thing, and said QED.  But it's
>not even a real asmachta, unless we can make asmachtas from navi.

Rabbinic legislation does not need a verse to back it up.

>It emphasizes the idea that women are generally unwelcome guests in
>the synagogue - but current trends (at least in the MO world) encourage
>women's synagogue attendance.

Unwelcome in /the men's sections/.  The Ezras Nashim is for them, as it was
in the BhM.  Except that in today's shuls, as opposed to the BhM, the women
can always have the Ezras Nashim for themselves.

Gil Student

Jon Baker wrote:
> OTOH, if the Tosfos case has the extra pull of habit,

Because Tosafos begins by saying that it applies to all other issurim.
See also Tosafos, Shabbos 3a sv bava that does not give your answer
(and see the Rosh there).

> BTW, where in SA is histaklus?

EH 21:1.

Gil Student

RGS:
> Jon Baker wrote:
>> OTOH, if the Tosfos case has the extra pull of habit,

> Because Tosafos begins by saying that it applies to all other issurim.  See

So? 

When you have a prat and a clal, doesn't the prat teach you about
the clal?

So too here, I would think: lifnei iver applies by all issurim, but trei
ivrei d'nahar only applies when there's some extra pull that would over-
come the extra separation of being on the other side of the river.

> also Tosafos, Shabbos 3a sv bava that does not give your answer (and see the
> Rosh there).

I don't see that he contradicts it either. Furthermore, he seems to
hold that trei ibrei even for Jews is d'rabanan there.

The model of one gene pair determining eye color was a common teaching
device in the past (possibly even today?) but it seems not to be true.
See, for example,

http://www3.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Omim/dispmim?227240

David Riceman

See: Aruch Hashulchan YOREH DEAH 13 #2 on why there is no issur of Ever
Min He'Chai with regard to fish. Theoretically one could eat live fish
but today this is assur due to Baal Teshaktzu. Curiously he does bring down
a Tosefta  in Terumot "ochel adam dagim v'chagavim bein chayim u'vein
meitim v'eino choshesh" and how the Rambam takes this literally.

It looks like another of what I call "relativistic" halacha [depending
on custom of the place] like isthenis on Yom Kippur, squeezing certain
fruits on Shabbat, definition of "chaticha ha're'uya l'hitkabed [SHACH YD
101 s"k 14] (see: Knesset haGedola quoting the Meharshal on *gribenes* !),
etc. What's assur in city *A* is muttar in city *B*.

Josh

From: "Seth Mandel" <sm@aishdas.org>
> I have gone through this issue carefully, because of a conversation I
> was having with some people, and thought I should put down my conclusions
> here. I welcome comments.

I have recently heard a tape on this by R Sinai Milovitzki.

He seems to divide xianity into 3.

The protestant/anglicans are not ovdei AZ,
The catholics - a little bit
and the Greek O - are true OAZ - worshiping the getchkes in their
churches.

SBA

I would respectfully submit that all of the R'ma's statements on this
subject can be understood in the following manner. Shituf is a form
of AZ. For gentiles, this form is permitted but for Jews it is not.
Therefore, for gentiles it is entirely permissible but for Jews it is AZ.
Therefore, while clothes that have a cross are perfectly permissible for
gentiles, for Jews they are clothes with AZ on them (YD 141). Bowing to
a cross is, for a Jew, AZ because, for a Jew, shituf is a prohibited
form of AZ (YD 150). However, for gentiles it is totally permissible
so there is no lifnei iveir in selling items used for Christian worship
to gentiles (YD 151).

That this is based on a misunderstanding of Tos'fos is, to some degree,
making a loaded statement. It is based on a *different* understanding of
Tos'fos, one accepted by the Maharsha, Maharam, and a number of aharonim.

I believe that the above is the intent in the following two teshuvos.
See also Yabia Omer vol. 2 YD 11:4.

Avnei Nezer, YD 123:9

"[Regarding a Jew who is requested to allow a Christian to put up a cross
on the Jew's property:] Another difference one could say is that because
of /lifnei iveir/ there is room to be lenient based on the words of the
Darkhei Moshe (151) and Shakh (ad loc. 7) that nowadays one should not
prohibit selling items for sacrifices to gentiles because their intent
is to the Creator of the heavens and the earth but they join God's name
with something else and shituf is not prohibited for Bnei Noah. One can
say that, similarly, a gentile who makes an idol for himself, not for
worshipping the idol but for joining the idol with God's name, does
not violate [a prohibition]... According to this, in the view of the
Darkhei Moshe and Shakh it would be permissible if forced [i.e. be-ones]
because with this there is no /lifnei iveir/ since for the gentile it
is not considered a partnership of AZ [the issue of ones is dependent
on a lomdishe chiluk the AN makes, ayen shom]..."

Binyan Tziyon, 63

"[Regarding whether a yeshivah may purchase a building that was used as
a church for a beis midrash:] Also, that Bnei Noah are not prohibited
on /shituf/ does not help because Jews were commanded and, therefore,
it is considered actual AZ for a Jew..."

Gil Student

David Brofsky wrote:
>any interesting mekoros on entering churches?

Yabia Omer vol. 2 YD 11:4; Yechaveh Da'at 4:45; Tzitz Eliezer 14: 91.

Gil Student

R Mordechai wrote:
> 3) Litvaks, biderech klal, stick to the old, 'regular zemiros' - so they
> don't sing 'askinu seudoso', for example, which is a later, Kabbalistic
> innovation, above the level of the masses. Also, the later addition of
> some printers 'Koh echsof noam Shabbos' by the Rebbe of Karlin, would
> presumably fall in that category (of being an innovation) as well.

Y-oh ekhsof is also full of kabbalistic material.

Arie Folger

"If someone does not enjoy singing, must they force themselves to do
so ? I think that is questionable.....For some people zemiros and music
may be a great enjoyment - for others, like some stereotypical Litvaks,
they may not be. We know that some things (like eating certain foods,
e.g.) that are enjoyable to most are not obligatory on people who do
not enjoy them. So too perhaps, with zemiros Shabbos."

There is a story told that RYBS like other litvaks never sang (or I
believe said) zemirot. However, his daughter married a Twerksy. When
one of the grandchildren came for a visit he compained to RYBS that the
other hrandfather sang zmeirot and was insistent that RYBS also do so.

--
 Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 01/07/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

On 5 Jan 2003 at 17:01, sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu wrote:
> *YILMEDU* [my emphasis] pesukei ha'tehillim mei'osios shemo me'sefer
> Likutei Tehillim. In Kaf Achas he formulates a yehi ratzon for after
> this limud. The keen insight of my correspondent or earlier today:

[snip]

> If one is SAYing Tehillim, then it is evident that one should say them
> in the way that is best me'orer the right kavanah and histapchus
> ha'nefesh - k'sidro shel Ne'im Zemiros Yisroel zy"a.

What about the common practice of saying the psukim in 119 with the name
as a part of the davening for a choleh R"L? Would you argue that also
has no basis?

> 22 Adar 5759 - March 10, 1999 | Mordecai Plaut, director Published
> Weekly 

> Opinion & Comment 
> Segulos for Refu'ah 

[snip]

> 7) The sefer Tzaddik Yesod Olom of HaRav Shlomo of Zhevihl zy'a (II,
> pg. 39) mentions that the Rav zy'a would customarily advise people who
> were in a predicament or sick, Rachmono litzlan, to pray for forty
> consecutive days at the Kosel Hama'arovi. The sefer also writes that
> people living far from the Kosel can do this through a shaliach, to
> request of people living nearby to pray for them. See also (pg. 86)
> what he writes about this.

Does anyone know more specifics about this? I actually did this for
someone a number of years ago (and someone else did it for my son),
mostly by going a bit before shkiya and saying Tehillim before and after
shkiya. Afterwards I heard (ostensibly from someone who talked about it
with Dayan Fisher, but I had other things to ask when I went to see him
around this time last year) several qualifications for this minhag.

a. You're supposed to go at the same time every day. 
b. If you'd be going anyway, that doesn't count - you have to go specially
to do it.
c. You can only do it once for a given sick person.

This left me with a number of questions:

1. That probably means that doing it the way I did it (which meant I
went to the Kotel 4-5 times a week instead of 7 times a week) really
isn't the right way to do it.
2. It probably also means that if you miss a day or two, getting a
substitute (which I did a couple of times) really wouldn't be the right
way to do it either. Nor would splitting the days among several people
(or would that help if the substitute/other people went at the same time
as you would have gone).
3. I couldn't ask my shver (who davens vasikin at the Kotel every day
other than Shabbos) to do it for me? What if I took advantage of the
fact that I was already at the Kotel to daven Ma'ariv there?
4. What does doing it only once per person mean? In his lifetime? In a
given machla R"L? (In the case in question, I did it for someone from
Tu b'Av to Rosh HaShanna and from right after Simchas Torah for the next
forty days. I stopped in between because I didn't want to have to deal
with walking from Har Nof - where we lived at the time - on Yom Kippur,
and not because I was aware of this once only rule).
5. What do you say? I decided on my own to say certain prakim of Tehillim
(after saying the Tehillim for a given day), but I have never seen any
standard list of Tehillim for this purpose set out anywhere (in some
Tehillim/Siddurim there is a LONG list of Tehillim to be said for someone
who is sick - if I had said all of those, I probably would have been
there most of the afternoon and evening. That could have worked short
term, but for forty days, that would be an awful lot).

> 8) It is cited in the name of gedolei olom zt'l that a segulah to be
> saved from the terrible disease of cancer, Rachmono litzlan, is to
> study each day a section of Sefer Tomer Devorah of the Ramak zy'a.

Is Gedolei Olom a generic reference or a reference to the sefer by 
that name? 

-- Carl

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

I had not wished to participate further since my opinion of MM was
adequately represented in the previous go-around and those unaccountably
interested in my opinions can always exhume it from the archives (Avodah
4:329). But RSBA's recent, and I'm afraid ignorant (c"v not a personal
attack, rather his own characterization of his familiarity with the
subject matter. I.e. he was not even aware that many g'dolim spoke
quite approvingly of Mendelssohn or personally used the biur) swipes,
have moved me to address a number of different topics that I don't think
were previously covered. So -- since RSBA seems partial to quotations,
let me start with one teaser as well:

" Do you seriously believe that if Maimonidies and Mendelssohn were to
come into your midst today they would accept you as one of their own....if
they (i.e. Rambam and Mendelssohn) were to listen to your sermons, read
your pamphlets....which label the Torah and Mitzvoth as antiquated and
urge that they be treated accordingly, and if they could see all your
"progressive" doings, they would give you an encouraging pat on the back,
rejoice in your true "progress" and praise it as well?.... Now what
about Mendelssohn? He would approach your chaos in his calm, gentle,
and circumspect manner and say to you " In truth, I do not see how
anyone born into the House of Jacob can possibly, in good conscience,
do away with the Law...The fear of God draws a boundary line between
speculation in theory and observance in practice that no conscientious
Jew may cross....commandments that have been enjoined upon every son of
Israel, regardless of whether or not there is a Temple service,... must
be observed strictly according to the words of the Law.."

notice the completely un-ironic coupling of MM and Rambam. And I do hope
that nobody was unduly disturbed by this quite typical representation
of MM-style apikorsus opinions..

Now just who is this mysterious MM admirer and sympathizer we have
just quoted? Apparently someone not as familiar with the local scene in
germany/prussia as RSBA or those ever insightful Hungarians he likes to
quote, else he would not have failed to append a 'shem r'shoim yirqav"
as appropriate to someone capable of expressing the apikorsus quoted
above. But I'll give you one clue right now -- it wasn't Eric Yoffie as
another member suggested. Answer at end.

I also want to preface my address of RSBA's specific remarks with a more
general observation addressed to the topic of ignorance and education.
RSBA, while doubtless a choshuvoh yid of good sense (despite the prima
facie contradiction of being an areivim contributor) seems from his
comments one of those who "know" things through, lets call it "other
means", and are impervious to the educative power that accompanies accrual
of additional facts that includes an openness to modifying or abandoning
previous assessments. I have remarked this phenomenon previously where I
discussed it in the context of the inhabitants of different ontological
universes. I usually prefer not to engage the "other means" crowd since
any additional facts brought to their attention are a priori irrelevant
to unmodifiable preconceptions. Also, you do really have to know something
about the subject matter to add to the discourse. Repeating vertlich from
rebbes who have no independent grasp of basic facts is frankly not very
enlightening. And thus it is with MM. Upon learning a new fact, that
a long list of baalei t'raicin b'halokhoh either admired MM personally
or actually used the Biur, RSBA concludes (surprise!) this can make no
difference since he "knows' differently and embarks on a rather innovative
pilpul which discovers the CS's opposition to be determinative for all
rabbonim for all time. Quite a chidush. and inconsistent since he doesn't
really follow the CS himself. Of which see below.

Anyway, lets first consider the real CS. RSBA is mattir for himself,
indeed seems to revel in the repetition of a simple mantra which the CS
himself never used, and that is to call MM an apikoros. CS indeed opposed
the Biur but never used such intemperate and factually false language
about MM's person. As for CS's opposition to Biur, there is no doubt
at all that its main focus was related to CS's cultural wars (though,
hafoch boh v'hafoch boh, he did manage to find one p'shat he didn't like,
at least according to an unreliable source). But to jump from there
to calling MM an apikoros is an innovation that came rather later --
and by people quite unfamiliar with the actual individual MM, but who
observed with horror the depredations of reform and inaccurately laid
it all retroactively at MM's door. I.e. this is a Hungarian innovation.

it is also hard to take RSBA's chidush about the issur of disputing
CS very seriously when he himself is quite ready to blow off CS when
it doesn't suit polemical purposes. I shall give two examples. The
first is the CS's attitude toward chasidus and Chasidim. He didn't
much like it. Though he certainly maintained cordial and respectful
relations with individual Chasidim (including his contemporary, z'qeini
the yismach moshe) he just flat out had a low opinion of chasidus. For
a published recording of his feelings, check out his hespeid for his
own rebbe muvhoq (actually, CS had two muvhoqim) R. Noson Adler. I
suspect RSBA is not ready to turn in his shtreimel (or start wearing
ties?) because CS took a dim view of chasidus. For another example,
on a purely halokhic matter, I suspect that RSBA's community -- as
did the entire charedi Hungarian community in the 19th century -- has
blown off CS's famous heter to abandon m'tzitzoh b'feh (instead use a
sponge) when there is a chashash of a sakonoh kol d'hu.. So much for
rabbonim -- even Hungarian rabbonim -- taking CS as the final word for
everything. Paranthetically, I'll also remark that my father a"h, whose
sigheter credentials were second to none and indeed learned in the satmar
yeshiva (the real satmar, before the satmarer rebbe got there) -- can't
get more hungarian-roumanian-marmorish-transylvanian, i.e. the real hard
core, than that -- always recalled that they spent a lot of time learning
shulchon oruch, and some recently appearing oruch hashulchon. But not an
organized activity on the CS, despite the great respect they had for him.

I should also like to address myself to the red herring which RSBA
introduced, i.e. whether CS was Rabbon shel Kol B'nei Haggoloh. Without
getting into actual details such as would a s'faradi -- who likely
never even heard of CS -- or a litvak who thought R. Chaim Voloshiner
might just be as big a lamdan as some guy in Hungary they also barely
heard of -- would agree with the statement, the silliness is that
(like "the g'dolim") there simply is no such thing. It is rather a
respectful figure of speech. No more no less. It is a made up title of
respect which we accord outstanding people (certainly such as CS) but
was never taken seriously to refer to some real position occupied by
a single individual. it is of course literally impossible to identify
the godole haddor. I am reminded of a local spiritual leader here in
silver spring who persisted (and persists) in describing the late rav
Shach z"l as Rabbon shel Kol Yisroel, despite the factually laughable
reality. He similarly described the Chofeitz Chaim and r. Chaim Ozer
(a little tricky to be sure since they were exact contemporaries. Also
r. Chaim couldn't even get himself elected by the majority as Rav of
Vilna, let alone Kol Yisroel, but he too was rabban shel Kol yisroel. Or
kol B'nei haggoloh, whatever.) None of which is meant to detract in the
slightest from the deserved greatness of any of the named individuals. It
is rather to demonstrate the silliness of attempting to read anything
substantive into such respectful figures of speech. Arguing about the
relative gadlus of this or that godole is a matter about as amenable to
determination as a bunch of kids arguing the relative virtues of mickey
mantle or willie mays, and as consequential. So claims to the contrary,
even if made in CAPITAL LETTERS as was done by one areivim choveir,
may be safely ignored. And to invent a new halokhic imperative that
supposedly flows from this (nobody can dispute the CS?) is simply
not something to be taken seriously by serious people. I had thought
at this point to discuss why in fact the CS did have such a stature
amongst his contemporaries and was indeed considered, at least within
some geographic area as first in standing amongst rabbonim. It is an
interesting question -- there were other great talmidei chakhomim who
held shtellers as prestigious as Pressburg and had shailos addressed to
them from near and far -- and is addressed in a historical essay by the
late Jacob katz. But perhaps another time.

Now to a couple of RSBA's supporting m'qoros. His first quote is from R.
Akiva Shlesinger. I suspect that RSBA knows as little about him as
he seems to know about CS and MM, since he is nobody's idea of a bar
samchoh. He was basically a henchman and political pamphleteer for his
(unpleasant but outstanding talmid chokhom and much better known) father
in law R. Hillel lichtenstein. Later in life he moved to eretz yisroel
where he wound up as a founder of petach tiqvoh. Certainly an interesting
fellow but not anybody of any weight that people took seriously as an
independent halokhic thinker or even talmid chokhom. That you would even
think of quoting him as a moqor shows either the lack of seriousness
behind your arguments or again, perhaps an unfamiliarity with the facts.

RSBA next quotes the Kashua rebbe, R. Shaul Brach. Certainly a great
talmid chokhom but areivim readers should also understand the Hungarian
qanoie (I think that is a tautology) context of these "sources". Firstly,
it is probably m'yusor to reiterate that R. Brach was almost certainly as
personally ignorant of MM as RSBA is. Secondly, if I remember correctly,
to kind of give you a context of where this fellow is coming from,
R. Brach not only attacked Zionists, he thought the Agudah was some
dangerous left wing distortion of true Judaism. As for Mizrachi, I
believe he ossured' breaking bread with them, treating them as goyim
g'murim. RSBA can correct me if I've got that wrong, though I don't
think so. So factually false fulminations about MM from such a source
ought to be read as part of a certain hashqofic continuum. If you buy
the whole package, you can buy off his MM quotes. BTW, question for
RSBA. Would you/Do you break bread with a Mizrachi (of course there may
be logistical difficulties finding one in Australia these days but this
was meant as gedanken experiment). If you would how can you ignore the
Kashua rebbe. And If you do ignore some things he says perhaps you should
consider the possibility that other things should be ignorable as well.

Now for RSRH. You mention that those finding a similarity between RSRH
and MM would be "giving a patch" to RSRH. But why? Again I suspect
that these sentiments come not out of any knowledge about what RSRH
stood for, but knowledge by "other means". It is my own opinion that
RSRH's reputation survives today partly by the luck that nobody actually
reads him. Thus the charedi world seems to have adopted the notion that
RSRH is a good guy and therefore so is torah im derech eretz without
actually paying attention to what it is what he actually said. if they
did I don't see how his positive reputation could possibly survive an
ab initio re-inspection measuring him against today's accepted truths
of the charedi world. I believe that MM's approach to modern culture
indeed had a good deal of overlap with many of the formulation of RSRH,
unless RSBA could kind of point out to me why this isn't so -- but of
course he doesn't have to since its not necessary to actually read what
RSRH wrote if one "knows" that a good guy like RSRH could not possibly
have replicated the sentiments of an apikoros like MM.

RSBA also mentioned, R Azriel Hildsheimer, implying a critical attitude
towards MM. (I think that was the context, I no longer have RSBA's note
in front of me and perhaps I'm misrepresenting his R. Hildesheimer
remark.) But indeed R. Hisldesheimer was one of MM's great admirers,
calling him "the great worldly sage" and explicitly divorcing him from
the reprehensible acts of some whom R. Hildesheimer characterizes as
"small minds" who tried to elevate themselves by climbing on the great
man's shoulders but did not deserve to be called MM's disciples, etc. (Oh
yes, I just remembered, I think R. Brach took off after R. Hildesheimer's
seminary as well.)

I think I also forgot to mention that R. Akiva Eger was not only a reader
of the Biur, but the 1832 edition of the M'qor Chaim Chumosh which had the
Mendelssohn translation and a commentary based on the Biur along with a
flowery acknowledgement to MM, actually contained his printed haskomoh.
This at a time when his son-in-law the CS's anti biur opinion was well
known. again, another data point for RSBA re the possibility that one
might disagree with CS.

As to why the Biur is out of print lately. It was widely reprinted
for a period of about 100 years, but then kind of fell out of favor --
not because of CS' schools opposition which had always existed -- but
rather (at least this is a conjecture which has been advanced by others)
because the translation was getting creaky and had been superseded by
other efforts.

OK I'm through. I resign from this topic -- unless RSBA can actually
develop some independent grasp of the substance of what MM actually
said and did, as opposed to quoting yet another fellow traveling
Hungarian who lived generations later with no substantive knowledge of
the inyon, he is simply not presenting any information to contribute
to a fuller understanding of the topic -- and without such a personal
substantive understanding I wonder that anyone might even flirt with an
issur d'oraisa of L"H -- which the chofeitz chaim assures us applies to
meisim as well. But I do owe an answer to the identity of the mystery MM
admirer that I quoted at the beginning of the posting. It was of course
RSRH himself.

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 845-2357
Michael.frankel@osd.mil			H: (301) 593-3949
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

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


[ 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         ]