Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 145

Thursday, April 10 2003

• Re: Children and Mechiras Chometz
• Re: Tefilin on CHM in EY
• Re: gilgul
• Re: Sheitels
• Re: Oral and written traditions
• Re: Oral and Written Traditions
• Re: Oral and written traditions
• Re: Oral and Written Traditions
• Re: Oral and Written Traditions
• Re: Oral and Written Traditions
• RE: oral and written traditions
• RE: On the Matter of Masorah
• Minhag Ashkenaz
• Re: Tefilin on CHM in EY
• Re: Burial on Yom Tov
• Re: gilgul
• learning Torah
• Re: Children and Mechiras Chometz

>It seems to me that such a child owns that chometz to the
>exclusion of everyone else (even parents), is personally
>responsible for that chometz, and is obligated to get rid
>of it. If the chometz still exists, it belongs to the child,
>who is chayav to get rid of it.
>
>It may be that there actually is nothing left of that chometz,
>or that another family member happened to find it and get
>rid of it during the cleaning/bedikah. But just to be sure,
>wouldn't it be a good idea for the child him/herself go to
>the Rav and add his/her name to the list of people selling
>their chometz? My children have been doing this for
>several years now, but I've never heard of it from anyone
>else.

I was surprised by this post. We do not sell our chametz in order to be
mekayem the mitzvah of tashbisu or to avoid the issur of bal yeira'eh.
We sell chametz that we want to have after Pesach. The other chametz we
get rid of and, if we miss it, are mevatel it. Your children should say
bitul (assuming that what they buy is really theirs). That alone should
be sufficient since presumably someone is doing bedikah on their rooms
(the rooms don't belong to the children anyway so I would venture that
they are not over on bal yeira'eh anyway).

Gil Student

On 9 Apr 2003 at 21:37, SBA wrote:
> I have always been under the impression that most [even misnagdim and
> Obs] don't leig Tefilin on CHM in EY - because of the influence of the
> talmidei Hagro!

It is correct that most people do not leig tefillin in EY on Chol
HaMoed. However, that may be the influence of the Sfardim as much (or
more) than the talmidei ha'Gra.

Both RMF and RSZA held that one whose minhag avos is to leig tefillin
on Chol HaMoed may do so b'tzina. This is brought in Igros Moshe, in
Halichos Shlomo and in Yom Tov Sheini k'Hilchoso.

I have probably mentioned on this list dozens of times that I leig
tefillin on Chol HaMoed at home after davening. My two over-Bar Mitzva
sons are both following my minhag. A few years ago, we had someone in
our minyan who actually davened behind a mechitza on Chol HaMoed until
after Chazoras HaShatz of Shachris so that he could wear his tefillin.

 From what I recall, Rav Moshe justifies the practice because he holds
that there is really no such thing as "minhag Eretz Yisrael," because
Eretz Yisrael belongs to all of Klal Yisrael. I don't recall what Rav
Shlomo Zalman's justification is.

-- 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.

M. Levin wrote:
>BYTW, I am troubled by this statement of Rambam, as there
>are quite a number more clear references in Tanach to Techias
>Hameisim than he admits. He says there is only Daniel 12.

Rambam writes that this is the only reference that he believes cannot
be plausibly explained as referring to something else. He is not saying
that there aren't other references. Only that those other verses can be
plausibly explained as referring to something else. IIRC R' Yosef Qafah
in a footnote points out that the verse in Daniel 12 has been explained
differently by some commentators and says that the Rambam was aware of
this but did not consider this explanation to be plausible.

Gil Student

On 9 Apr 2003 at 13:46, SBA wrote:
> From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
>> But isn't being attracted to a married woman much more objectionable
>> than to a single woman who is theoretically avaialble for marriage?

> Not when the man is already married, LAD.

You're equating Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom to an issur d'oraysa? 

-- Carl

On 9 Apr 2003 at 9:48, David Riceman wrote:
> Rabbi B cited the psak as an example of what we were then calling
> "atzas gedolim".  Yet, according to what he now says, none of us
> should accept it as "atzas gedolim" since our source is not RSZA, it
> is Rabbi B (and even he heard it orally, not in writing).  Therefore
> we should assign it no more status than an opinion generated
> independently by Rabbi B.  So how could it be support for his opinion
> about "atzas gedolim"? Surely for a raayah to be acceptable it must
> come from a link in the chain of mesorah, which, l'shitaso, this was
> not.

I think the reason none of us should accept it has nothing to do with
whether we heard it from RYGB or directly from RSZA, but rather because
it was given specifically to RYGB in his circumstances. While a moreh
hora'a who is aware of the psak and aware of all the circumstances might
have the right to be m'dameh milsa l'milsa to be matir someone else to go
to college, I (and probably you too - I don't know if you have smicha)
cannot derive a heter to attend college from RYGB's shaila (not to say
that there may not be other heterim).

At the end of the day, there's also a difference between atzas gedolim
and psak. Atzas gedolim will almost always be directed specifically to
the person who asked the question. Psak may or may not be. IIRC RYGB
told us that RSZA termed his answer "psak." But had RSZA not said that it
was a psak, RYGB might have been free to seek eitzos from other gedolim
(e.g. RYSE), or, were he someone who did not hold from da'as Torah (or
one who concluded that the issue was non-halachic) to ignore the "eitza."

Would I be wrong to assume that when Rav Efrati told RYGB that RYSE
deferred to RSZA, RYSE was aware of the specific point that RSZA had
termed his answer psak? Given that they were mechutanim, I assume that's
at least a possibility. Perhaps RYGB can confirm.

-- Carl

On 8 Apr 2003 at 23:29, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> I've mentioned this story before but it bears repeating:
> I recall one day when R. Yeruchim Goerlick was reading to us out of
> the Chidushie HagrIZ - his own rebbe. He read seomthing and then gave
> a very serious/Stern look, that he heard JSUT the opposite of what was
> written down.

> Now am I supposed to accept the written word as printed over the word
> of my own rebbe who learned - iirc - 5 years from the Griz personally?

YOU are supposed to accept the word of your Rebbe.

But as to the rest of us, I think it would depend on whether the Griz
wrote his own chiddushim or someone transcribed them after his petira
(IIRC the latter is the case). If the former, then the rest of us should
accept the Griz as written. If the latter, then I cannot think of any
reason offhand why the transcriber would have any more ne'emanus than
Rav Gorelick.

-- Carl

"Carl M. Sherer" wrote:
> I think the reason none of us should accept it has nothing to do with
> whether we heard it from RYGB or directly from RSZA, but rather
> because it was given specifically to RYGB in his circumstances...

> Would I be wrong to assume that when Rav Efrati told RYGB that RYSE
> deferred to RSZA, RYSE was aware of the specific point that RSZA had
> termed his answer psak? Given that they were mechutanim, I assume
> that's at least a possibility. Perhaps RYGB can confirm.

I wasn't clear enough.  When I wrote "accept it", I didn't mean accept
RSZA's advice about going to college, I meant accept Rabbi B's assertion
that the fact he had received such advice indicated that it was (a) binding
and (b) given b'ruach hakodesh.  Now he tells us that it's not part of the
chain of mesorah, so how could he have used it in that discussion as
evidence (no matter how weak the evidence was)?

David Riceman

At 09:54 AM 4/9/03 -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>>> Recheck that reference to tshuvoth haRama: R. Shalom Shachna refused
>>> to publish (or even to permit students to make private copies) of
>>> his psaqim.

>> Perhaps. This is one drop in the vast ocean.

> Wow! You have made an assertion about how mesorah works without any
> evidence. I cite evidence that a rishon disagreed with you and you
> reject it by saying "This is one drop in the vast ocean." Show me some
> of the vast ocean before you dismmiss the only drop you've seen.

1. Reb Shalom Shachna was a Rishon?

2. The vast ocean is the extraordinarily extensive responsa literature
that is the basis of psak halacha.

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

At 11:29 PM 4/8/03 -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
>Question does the Gmara state that "asy UT kechol legabie {kvuras}
>hameis or not?
>
>I learned in Yeshiva that Mies mitzva is THE most important imtizva that
>a Kohen Gadol must be metamei himself, even more important than kibud
>av vo'eim!

A mes on yom tov sheni is not a mes mitzvah unless he has no kovrim. That 
is not the case here, and therefore any parallels are irrelevant.

>And your own uncle's kehillla would not change its minhag to avoid burial
>on YT. how come. Is Breuer's masorah based upon faulty information?
>I find that assertion to be quite condescnding to a 500 year old tradition
>of Minhag Frankfort!

In halachah we have a principle of Eilu va'Eilu.

Do you really continue to believe that RMF uprooted - intentionally,
noch dehr tzu! - a Bavli?!

RSBA responded to your plaint, ayain sham.

>I've mentioned this story before but it bears repeating:
>I recall one day when R. Yeruchim Goerlick was reading to us out of
>the Chidushie HagrIZ - his own rebbe. He read seomthing and then gave
>a very serious/Stern look, that he heard JSUT the opposite of what was
>written down.
>
>Now am I supposed to accept the written word as printed over the word
>of my own rebbe who learned - iirc - 5 years from the Griz personally?

Only if the Griz wrote it personally - the Chiddushei ha'Griz are me'pi
ha'shemu'ah, and therefore only as reliable as the transmitter, as we
have noted previously.

>If the Gmara itself used RYGB's logic it would have to say something like
>this:
>Since Rabbi Yochana is the poseik hador, me MSUT assuem that our humble
>minds cannot fathom the pshat in thios shver braissso, so we shojd NOT
>ask a Tiyuvta onRav Yochanon but on our humbeo read of the shver Braisso!

Huh?! What does "posek ha'dor" have to with anything? I never brought up
such a concept and do not believe it exists other than as a meaningless
platitude.

>Rav Gorelick warned us many times: "Ich vill NISHT KEIN FRUM TORAH!"
>Therefore as a talmid of Rav Yeruchim Z"L, I have no choice but to
>listen to him uncritically and to accept this dictum as aboslute without
>challenge

I agree with Rabbi Gorelick. Frumkeit has nothing to do with this issue.

[Email #2. -mi]

At 06:00 PM 4/9/03 +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
>Would I be wrong to assume that when Rav Efrati told RYGB that RYSE
>deferred to RSZA, RYSE was aware of the specific point that RSZA had
>termed his answer psak? Given that they were mechutanim, I assume that's
>at least a possibility. Perhaps RYGB can confirm.

I do not think that RYSE was at all aware that the question had been
posed to RSZA, much less what he had answered. It was, to the best of
my understanding, Rav Efrati's decision not to tell me what RYSE had said.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerushalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

In a message dated 4/9/2003 10:21:00 AM EST, cmsherer@fandz.com writes:
> YOU are supposed to accept the word of your Rebbe.
> But as to the rest of us, I think it would depend on whether the Griz
> wrote his own chiddushim or someone transcribed them after his petira
> (IIRC the latter is the case). If the former, then the rest of us should
> accept the Griz as written. If the latter, then I cannot think of any
> reason offhand why the transcriber would have any more ne'emanus than
> Rav Gorelick.

and once you're dealing with a written post-ptirah document(or even an
unauthorized preptirah) you need to seriously consider whether the Rav
in question changed his mind subsequent to the writers information.

KT
Joel

FWIW, the reluctance of some to publish (eg RCBrisker) is a ra'ayah in
favor of RYGB's position.

After all, if a verbal pesaq was at least as authoritative as written,
why all the pachad about putting pen to paper? RCB didn't write /because/
of a fear of the authority it would give his words.

-mi

RMS
> >The notion that the shakla vetarya of the amoraim is radically different
> >in methodology (rather than in authority) than ours (legislative versus
> >interpretive, as RYGB writes) would be unknown to the rambam, who holds
> >for a seamless transition - the mere difference is that post talmudic
> >authorities have only local relevance, and have accepted the corpus
> >of the talmud - but the methodology remains the same. The legislative
> >period is that of the sanhedrin. The chasimas hatalmud is not the end
> >of the legislative period, but the end of universally accepted hora'ot -
> >quite a different animal.

RYGB
> "Mere" difference?! The universal kabbalah did not occur in a vacuum! It 
> recognized the end of an era and the tectonic shift. While it is true that 
> the Sanhedrin - the period of which continued into the Amoraic times - was 
> the legislative body, the early interpretive - and, legislative by dint of 
> acceptance - period was a seamless continuation of that process. "Sof 
> horo'oh" is not "Sof kabbolas ha'horo'os," but "Sof horo'oh." V'duk.

The issue that the rambam addresses in his hakdama to the Mishne
Torah views the change quite differently, vduk. The methodology of
interpretation is unchanged. However, people no longer recognize
(for a variety of reasons - geographical diversity, deterioration in
the institutions, etc) the binding authority of geone bavel. However,
prior to sof hora'a, hor'aa is based on interpretation, and after sof
hora'a it is based on interpretation, and the legislative tendencies
that you cite can crop up to greater or lesser extent depending on
the interpretive style - eg much of tosfot, which has a very similar
interpretive style to the gmara. THis notion that the amoraic period is
a seamless continuation of the sanhedrin, while the saboraim and geonim
consitute a radical break from the legislative period, is, to use a phrase
that RYGB forces me to overuse, quite breathtakingly radical. One would
hope that such a radical position could be supported by some authority...


>>Do you have a source for this amazing hiddush?

> Several. But I fail to understand why the Gemara in Bava Metzia, R' Sherira 
> Gaon and the Rambam do not suffice

Those sources hold quite differently than you and are a raya listor - you
are reading them through a prism that distorts.

RMS
> By this position, oral and written traditions have equal weight, as
> their sole value is conveying an approach -but whether we accept it or
> not depends on whether we are convinced by the approach.

RYGB
> Correct - to a point. Were the arguments conveyed orally with the psak, 
> that would be as effective as a transmission in writing.

You are positing two different things:
1) Psak without reasoning is far less binding than psak with reasoning.
This, as you know, is a machloket - eg, at least one version of the
story about rav haim and rav spektor.

2) Oral traditions in general do not have arguments - that is not quite
true, they sometimes do.

Again, over the centuries, people have found it valuable to compile
psakim even without reasons, and many of those psakim are still cited
(kvar hora zaken). Even today, even without understanding the rationale,
the fact that someone paskened is viewed as having impact - eg, as was
previously discussed, RSZA disagreed with the Chazon Ish's reasoning
about electricity, but still felt bound to at least partially respect it.

RMS
> >I would argue that to the extent that one bases one's psak on the
> >authority of the NY, whether it is an oral tradition, a stam written
> >psak, a detailed written tshuva, or a record of an oral tradition in
> >a later book is moot, as long as the oral traditions are reliable.
> >If one is basing one's psak purely on the "ra'ayos and shakla v'tarya
> >that could be tested by logic and debate", then the fact that it was
> >the NY rather than an anomynous sefer or psak should be irrelevant,
> >and the question then isn't whether the tradition is written or oral,
> >but merely how convincing the arguments are.

RYGB
> I disagree. Knowing the NbY ate sturgeon is not material - perhaps it was a 
> different fish with a similar name, perhaps it was an error, etc. At best, 
> it would remain an interesting curiousity.

I was positing an oral tradition by a reputable student that he was at the
Noda Biyehuda, who ate many times the disupute fish, said that this fish
is the fish commonly known as sturgeon, that he knew of the machloket,
and the NY bieyhuda said that he thought it muttar.

> >I don't have the time to research this now, but (from recollection)
> >think that many poskim do use oral traditions (off hand, RH Schachter
> >uses oral traditions from RYBS, the bne banim uses oral traditions from
> >his grandfather, and many poskim cite experience and tradition conveyed
> >from their teachers) (although, of course, once written down, they become
> >written - but the written tradition is one of writing down previous oral
> >traditions). Od hazon lemo'ed, but this statement is extraordinary

> Thanks for the compliment. Traditions - especially from RYBS and similar 
> oft-"quoted" sources - are indeed only as valid as the transmitter.

Rav Geiger is also extraordinary...
Furthermore, another confusion between two different issues. The validity
of the transmitter impacts the reliability of the source. However,
once accepted as reliable, the impact of the source is dependent on the
original source, rather than the transmitter.

RMS
>>Rishonim transmit in writing oral traditions from the past. The power
>>and validity of the statement is not from the compiler, but from the
>>original author of the oral tradition.

RYGB
> Nope.

Any halachic source that would argue as you do??? We have anonymous
compilations from the rishonim.

> ...
> >If I were to write down all my oral traditions, it would suddenly achieve
> >a new status jsut because it was published??

> Nope - only with reasoning.

RDR
> >Recheck that reference to tshuvoth haRama: R. Shalom Shachna refused to 
> >publish (or even to permit students to make private copies) of his psaqim.

RYGB
> Perhaps. This is one drop in the vast ocean.

RYGB (later)
> I do not know offhand of a source for my position. You will have to argue 
> against me qua me :-) .

no, you against (at the least) an explicit rav Shachna (by your shitta,
an explicit rama..), unless you have another source.

Again, with all traditions (oral and written) there is a problem with
authenticating it - that the tradition accurately reflects the intention
of the original author. Furhtermore, without the rationale for the psak,
one may not fully know the extent. However, the notion that the oral
tradition is inferior to the written is a novel innovation, and requires
some validation. it seems far more a response to the fact that the
oral tradition and behavior of yisrael saba is in direct contradiction
to current haredi norms, rather than a reflection of normative halachic
methodology.

Meir Shinnar

> I would think this is a defining feature. This is a position I
> have argued RRW about repeatedly. Change because of finding an error
> is pretty common, change because of finding no basis is rare, if ever.
> Rebbe found that the reason given for the status of Beit She'an was built
> on a flawed assumption. And, being Rebbe, we assume he is not likely to
> have overlooked any "hidden reason"....
> The Rambam failed to find a basis to the current practice, rather
> than finding that the basis was a faulty assumption.

The Rambam tells you the basis for the Geonim's practice - "mesores hi
b'yedeihem ish m'pi ish" (Shmita 10:7). And the Rambam tells you exactly
the point of contention: was there a count of yovel or only shmita during
the 70 years between bayis rishon and bayis sheni and post-churban?
The Geonim held no yovel was counted; the Rambam held it is counted.
Perhaps we can narrow the scope - maybe only in cases where there is
this direct mesorah, like shmita, does that evidence trump all logic and
analysis (do I sound like RWW?) Once you say that you can't extrapolate
to kohanim in medical school or other issues.

> Change because of finding an error is pretty common, change because
> of finding no basis is rare, if ever. Rebbe found that the reason given
> for the status of Beit She'an was built on a flawed assumption. And,
> being Rebbe, we assume he is not likely to have overlooked any "hidden
> reason"

Sounds from the gemara like Rebbe was not mechadesh anything l'halacha -
there already existed a shita that kidsha l'shayta lo kidhsa l'asid lavo,
and all that was needed was a giluy milsa in metziyus that Beit She'an
was not conquered by olei bavel. The initial flaw was a misunderstanding
of metziyus. What if the whole world held kedusha rishona kidsha l'asid
lavo? If rebbe wanted to change the practice, wouldn't that need to
be looked at based on the criteria the rambam gives in hil mamrim for
uprooting takkanos and dinim?

Last week, R' Rich Wolpoe offered a list of possible motivations
for saying a beracha on Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, with the "correct"
answer being that it is minhag Ashkenaz. In this spirit, I would like
to offer a list of different possibilities of what it means to follow
minhag Ashkenaz. Assume, for the purpose of this exercise, that one is
NOT living in the Breuer kehilah, which is clearly supposed to be the
Frankfurt kehilah relocated (although even there, I have read that some
changes were made in America to accomodate the expectations of those
who came from other parts of Germany), but rather in today's typical
community, which consists mostly of people without a strong affiliation
with a particular European kehilah. I will stick to issues of nusach
hatefilah in my examples, since that is what I know best.

a. We should stick to "minhag Ashkenaz hakadmon," as practiced in Mainz,
Worms and Speyer (overlooking, for the moment, the slight differences
in minhagim between these locations), and recorded in sifrei minhagim
such as Sefer haMaharil. All later additions that were adopted in the
wake of the spread of kabbalah, such as Kabbalas Shabbas, "LeDavid --
Hashem Ori" during the yamim nora'im season, and certainly "Mizmor Shir
Chanukas haBayis leDavid" before pesukei dezimra should be rejected.
In those instances where an eastern European tradition differs from pure
minhag Ashkenaz, such as saying "Ein Kamocha" before taking out the Torah
on Shabbos and Yom Tov, and many places in the order of selichos and other
piyutim, we should still follow minhag Ashkenaz, since the founders of
the Eastern European Jewish communities originally came from Ashkenaz,
and they were incorrect to change their minhag.

b. We should follow whatever is in the ArtScroll siddur labeled
"Ashkenaz."

c. Any changes that have been accepted by a large group of Jews in any
location can be considered legitimate derivatives of nusach Ashkenaz.
For example, Kabbalas Shabbas, while it was an innovation at first that
spread from Tzefat, can now be considered part of minhag Ashkenaz.
Minhag Polin is the version of minhag Ashkenaz that is legitimately
followed by Jews from Eastern Europe. Additionally, the non-saying of
"Barukh Hashem le'Olam Amen ve'Amein" and the saying of "morid hatal"
are now considered to be "minhag Ashkenaz in Eretz Yisrael," as these
practices are nearly universal in Ashkenazi shuls there, even though
the source of these practices is sevara of the Gra, and was clearly not
minhag Ashkenaz. This legitimacy comes only after the fact, though, once
these deviations have already been accepted by large groups (usually a
particular location), and does not mean that any individual shul could,
lechatechilah, decide to create its own new offshoot of minhag Ashkenaz.

d. We should follow minhag Ashkenaz whenever the halakha does not favor
one way over the other (as seems to be the role assigned to minhag by
Yerushalmi Peah 7:5). Thus, the "base nusach" is cleary nusach Ashkenaz.
However, any time that the rav of a shul feels that another practice is
halakhically preferable to minhag Ashkenaz, he should conduct the shul
according to his sevara. This allows, for example, for many of the changes
advocated by RYBS, partucularly on the yamim noraim, such as including
"melokh al kol ha'olam kulo bikhvodekha..." in the berakhah of kedushas
hayom on Yom Kippur as well as Rosh haShanah (as the Rambam has it),
just to give one example.

I throw out the following questions:
1.  Which of these models do you think is halakhically most correct?
2.  Which do you think reflects the most common practice?
3.  Which model do you think is most consistent?

--D.C.

Micha Berger:
> And even there it's not muchrach. The Gra wore tefillin on cholo shel
> mo'eid, no?

SBA:
> Interesting.
> I have always been under the impression that most [even misnagdim and
> Obs] don't leig Tefilin on CHM in EY - because of the influence of the
> talmidei Hagro!

I don't know what the Gra himself did -- perhaps it's recorded in Ma'aseh
Rav? (I don't have a copy.) I do know that in Biur haGra OC 32:4, he
rejects even the Rosh's contention (which is summarized nicely by Beit
Yosef) that the Yeruhsalmi clearly supports our wearing tefilin on CHM.

However, there is a little piece from the Brisker Rav that is brought in
the "Haggadah shel Pesach miBeis Leivi," in which he suggests a basis
for the Brisker custom (possibly based on the Gra?) of not putting on
tefilin on CHM. (Although I should note that in the appendix volume to
the same haggadah, it says that the Beis haLeivi did put on tefilin on
CHM, but R' Chayim changed the custom.)

Anyway, the sevara is that there is no chiyuv to put on tefilin every
day; rather, it is a mitzvah kiyumis. While ideally, the greatest kiyum
would be in wearing them all the time, we are consired about a clean body
and pure thoughts, and so the minhag has become to just wear them for
shacharis, so as not to "give false testimony on ourselves" by saying
KS without them. On CHM, where there's a big dispute over whether it's
the zeman for tefilin at all, it's not worth the "risk" of putting them
on with improper thoughts and an unclean body.

The Gra himself, we know, generally wore tefilin all day. So perhaps
it is possible that he, himself, wore them on CHM as well (so as not
to lose even a minute of possible "kiyum time," whereas his talmidim,
who followed the mainstream practice of trying to keep tefilin-wearing
time to a minimum, refrained from wearing them on CHM due to the
aforementioned sevara.

--D.C.

In Avodah V10 #144, From: Moshe Shulman <mshulman@ix.netcom.com>
> From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
>> Also, RMF seems to reverse the Bavli re: burial on YT Shinei by invoking
>> chillul YT as a concern ...

>> I learned in Yeshiva that Meis mitzva is THE most important mitzva....

> At any rate, despite RMF's psak Satmar buried a meis on the FIRST day
> of YT when it fell on a Friday . Is Satmare LESS concerned with chillul
> YT Rishon?

As a member of the chevra kadisha here in Miami, I am curious about the
tecnicalities of burying a mes on yom tov. Here, the ck volunteers would
have to drive to the funeral home to do the tahara, and then the body
would have to be transported 25 miles to the cemetery. Funerals simply
are not done on YT here, even when there might be a three-day delay
because of that (as this yom tov coming up). Is everything in walking
distance wherever there are Satmar communities (or where you live)?
The tahara building, the cemetery? Or do people drive on YT in order to
fulfill the mitzva of timely burial?

Toby Katz

Thank you. Undoubtedly this is the only way to understand it. I am,
however, still troubled by the apparent tendentiousness (please forgive
my chutspa) of saying this. What about all the other references to going
down and out of sheol and end of Ishaya and all of the derivations of
chazal, some of which are pshuto shel mikra.

I also fail to understand another difficulty.

According to the Rambamin Maamar Techias Hameisim,, techias hameisim is
a temporary stage before olam hanshomose and it is needed to demonstrate
the truth of miracles. It seems that when he lists it in the 13 Ikkarim,
that this would be the import of its inclusion. However, the Rambam
also states in MN and Shmone Prakim that mircles were essentially
pre-programmed at Creation. If so, why is such ademinstration so crucially
important as to be a principle of faith?

M. Levin

RYBS always insisted that learning gemara about derabanan e.f chanukah,
purim was is mekayim talmud torah from the Torah. I know of no one that
disagrees with this.

The recent daf yomi had an extensive discussion of remedies for various
diseases. As all (?) acharonim point out we no longer rely on these
gemaras for a variety of reasons.


Why would one be mekayem the mitzvah of talmud torah learning this
sugya? Why not just learn a modern medical text on how to treat these
diseases. Furthermore the translation of these diseases and their reatment
is frequently a matter of speculation. So we don't even know what they
were saying.

Eli Turkel

On 9 Apr 2003 at 10:40, Gil Student wrote:
>       ... We sell chametz that we want to have after Pesach. The other
> chametz we get rid of and, if we miss it, are mevatel it. Your
> children should say bitul... That alone should be sufficient since
> presumably someone is doing bedikah on their rooms (the rooms don't
> belong to the children anyway so I would venture that they are not
> over on bal yeira'eh anyway).

I would have thought that the parents (father) would have ownership
of the child's room - even if the child is over Bar Mitzva - by virtue
of kinyan chatzer. OTOH, if you own chametz on someone else's property
(e.g. your desk at work), AFAIK that's yours and you have to sell it or
get rid of it.

-- 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.

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


[ 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         ]