Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 029

Thursday, June 19 2003

• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Re: Kiddush bemakom se'uda
• [none]
• Re: kohannim and Y'T in chutz la'aretz
• Re: perika u-te'ina
• Re: schar ve-onesh
• Re: Just one Posuk - Tehillim initiative with a new twist !
• Re: Avodah V11 #27 duchening - singing along with the Kohanim
• Re: Perikah and Te'inah
• RE: Defining ervah: woman's hair covering
• minhag
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Re: Kiddush bemakom se'uda
• Re: giving chalah to your wife before eating your own piece
• Re: Defining ervah: woman's hair covering
• Re: Defining ervah: woman's hair covering
• RE: Defining ervah: woman's hair covering
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• Re: Revadim Project

I wrote:
> >and since baby (definitely in warm weather) tend to be dressed
> >according to different standards and in stretching or loosely fitting
> >clothes (two sizes larger, because he'll outgrow it soon ;-)), it is
> >virtually unavoidable that one will touch the baby above the elbow or
> >on the leg. Does one need to wash, then? (will make most people eat at
> >the sink, needing to wash so often ;-))
> >Should those areas be considered mekomot hamegulim?

RSBaruch wrote:
> According to the LOR I asked, yes (they are mekomot hamegulim)

So is it practice that establishes what is megulleh? Let me take an
extreme example: Yehudit is a future baalat tshuvah (we hope). Right
now, she is concerned with hilkhot se'udah, but generally dresses with
midriff baring clothing. She touches her midriff during her meal and
asks me whether she needs to wash again, what do I say? ... that since
she always dresses like that, it is a maqom megulleh? (note, Yehudit is
fictitious, created for the purpose of extrapolating your LOR's psaq)

Arie Folger

On 17 Jun 2003 at 16:57, Micha Berger wrote:
> : Admittedly, it could be argued that menstruating would cause a woman
> : not to have a guf naki. I just don't think that's the reference here.

> Why? The statements before us are:
> 1- Women are less likely to have a guf naki (with that implication WRT
>    tallis and tefillin); and

Not less likely. The MB says "ain zrizos li'zaher," implying that having
a guf naki is something one can control to some extent. Menstrual flow
isn't controllable (at least without artificial or outside intervention).

> 2- Men are still capable of having neki'us problems, presumably due to
>    flatulation.

True. Flatulation is not something that can be controlled by everyone
at all times.

> Again, why do you assume only one cause of uncleanliness is involved?

Because if menstrual flow was the issue, the MB would have not have said
"ain zrizos li'zaher," he would have said "ain YECHOLOS li'zaher."

I don't recall who said it but the person who wrote that women would
often be soiled from children's diapers (where men would not) sounds
plausible to me too.

-- Carl

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
> I would like to thank whoever it was that posted the reference to
> MB 38:13, regarding whether or not the required "guf naki" refers to
> menstruation.
> I think it would be very helpful if all interested parties would take a
> look at Aruch HaShulchan 38:6 on that same question. ...
> In short, I see no reference to menstruation in any of this. An accusation
> that women are lax in cleanliness, maybe. But if menstruation were the
> problem, someone would comment that they're not ABLE to keep themselves
> suffciently clean.

See the Eshel Avrohom - [the Betchooch one (any got a better way of
spelling it?)], who writes a svoro that it is a kovod for the tefilin
that women shouldn't don them as they can sometimes become a niddah
'behesech hadaas' - outside their regular period.

He also adds that as 'noshim daatom kalos',
they are not careful with hesech hadaas and 'kalus rosh'...

SBA

On 17 Jun 2003 at 18:15, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> I'm supposed to eat *after* I've fed my dog. If I don't remember until
> I've already said HaMotzi, I can tell someone else to feed him, even
> prior to eating the bread myself. (Mechaber 167:6) Don't my guests
> deserve at least a similar consideration? (Note that slicing their
> portions is something that I *couldn't* do before saying the bracha.)

There's an issur against eating before your animals eat. There is no 
such issur against eating before your guests eat. 

Aderaba - your guests are supposed to wait for you. The halacha is 
that the host is botzea. Whether your guests "deserve at least a 
similar consideration" is not a criterion recognized by halacha. 

> But if another family is at my table, I see no reason why *I* should
> give precedence to the parents (my peers) over their children. If one
> of their children happens to be closer to the challah than his parent,
> then sure, that child should offer to his parent before taking for
> himself (unless, perhaps, it is a bigger chiyuv for him to minimize
> his own hefsek). But to *me*, the parent and child are indeed equal,
> unless the parent is in one of the categories which I'm chayav to give
> kavod to.

I'm not sure there's any halachic issue involved here. But since I 
teach my children not to start eating until everyone is at the table, 
I assume that others do likewise. It would never occur to me to give 
children before their parents. Nor would I want to give my own 
children before giving their friends' parents. But then, I'm so old 
fashioned that I insist that my kids refer to my friends as Mr. X or 
Rabbi Y.

> RCS continued: <<< I knew I wasn't making this up. The Mishna Brura
> 167:79 paskens the way I have been arguing for the Ba'al HaBayis to
> take first for HaMotzi .... See also the Sh'arei Tziyon s"k 69 there.>>>

> Read that again, and ask yourself whether the verb "l'chalek" in that
> context refers to slicing the challah into many pieces, or whether it
> refers to passing the slices out to the others, or possibly both
> actions. The Rama there was very precise, and wrote that <<< It is
> mutar to give each one his portion before he eats, provided that they
> wait until he has eaten. >>> This language of the Rama leads me to
> suspect that when the MB and others use the word "l'chalek", it refers
> to passing out the portions, and *not* to the slicing.
> 
> I think the language of the MB says that also: "The Taz holds that
> it's not kedai for the Slicer to give out ("she'y'chalek") a portion
> to each one, because if they're not allowed to eat until after he
> does, then it is considered a hefsek." In other words, it is a waste
> of time (and a hefsek) to give out the slices if they can't eat it
> yet. That speaks only to the giving out, and not to the actual
> slicing.

This makes no sense to me. If I am not supposed to distribute their
portions to them because doing so would be a hefsek, what is the point of
cutting their portions? They're going to have to wait either way! Look
at the Sha'ar Ha'Tziyun there (69). He says (translation mine), "If
they were permitted to eat first, since he is being motzi them with the
bracha, it [passing out the challah] would not be considered a hefsek
[for him] because the bracha applies to all, and by receiving their
portion immediately and eating from it, the bracha would be closer to
their eating. But since they are not allowed to eat in any event, why
should he interrupt himself?"

It should be apparent that the same line of reasoning applies to the act
of cutting the Challah. There's no reason to make a difference between
cutting and distributing - cutting is simply part of the distribution
process. Since the guests cannot eat anyway, why should the host lengthen
his own hefsek? So that it will be closer the amount of time that is
their hefsek? Where is there such a concept in halacha?

I think you've introduced a western notion of 'courtesy' that the halacha
doesn't recognize.

[Email #2. -mi]

On 17 Jun 2003 at 13:39, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 11:15:09PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
>: I knew I wasn't making this up. The Mishna Brura 167:79 paskens the 
>: way I have been arguing for the Ba'al HaBayis to take first for 
>: HaMotzi (although the entire distribution order after the Ba'al 
>: Ha'Bayis is likely my own invention) in the name of the Taz, the Graz 
>: and the Magen Giborim. See also the Sh'arei Tziyon s"k 69 there.

> The MB does /not/ pasqen in that s"k.

> He starts by explaining the position given in the Rama besheim Tosafos
> and Mordechai, that the others at the table ought not taste before the
> mevareikh. 

The Rama says "ainan ra'shain." I think that's a little stronger than 
"ought not." 

> They should wait before eating, not before his cutting and
> handing it out. According to the Derishah -- who is given as a yeish
> omerim and only named in the ShTz s"k 68 -- this is even if the ba'al
> habayis gives reshus.
> 
> According to the MB's original peshat in the Rama, this is an issue of
> kavod and reshus, not of berakhah and hefseq.

Then how do you explain the Sha'ar Ha'Tziyun in s"k 69? There he DOES
make it an issue of hefsek for the host (see my translation in the email
to RAM).

> Then he quotes the Taz's shitah.

And then he says it also b'shem she'ar achronim, which the Sha'ar
Ha'Tziyun tells us in s"k 70 is the Graz and the Magen Giborim. Why is
that not "maskonas ha'achronim" (cf. the Hakdama)?

-- Carl

I heard it fairly reliably in the name of R' Moshe Feinstein.

Gil Student

MB wrote:
> Still, I would ask where one has indication that the minhag started with
> the masses rather than the poseqim.

> Particularly since we're discussing tefillah, which implies a presence
> in shul and therefore many morei de'asra's approval.

As I recall there is a tosfos, 1st or second in Bava Bathra that refers
to a minhag shtus, although that is an issue of commerece.

M. Levin

In a message dated 06/17/2003 10:48:59 PM EDT, Rebelkrim@aol.com writes:
> the question is - can we say batel ta'am - batel hatakanah? A story is
> told about RYBS during his first years in Boston when he insisted that
> kohanim duchen on Shabbos Yom Tov, going against the minhag of the shul
> at the time. IIRC, he felt that it was a minhag ta'us.
 
The R'YBS story is brought down in "The Rav" by R'Rakeffet.

KT
Joel Rich

On 18 Jun 2003 at 0:09, Samuel Pianko Groner wrote:
> The key lines, written by Rav Lichtenstein, are as follows:
> 
> "We came to a corner, and found a merchant stuck there with his car.
> The question came up as to how to help him; it was a clear case of
> perika u-te'ina (helping one load or unload his burden)..."
> 
> I'm not sure how closely it is fair to read Rav Lichtenstein's words
> in what is clearly not a psak halakha context (he brings the story not
> in order to discuss perika u-te'ina but in order to discuss the
> reaction of some youngsters who witnessed this as well), but he does
> call it a "clear case of perika u-te'ina," and there were no animals
> in sight, or at least none that he mentions.

I may be reading too much into this, but it seems to me that RAL would
be m'chalek between prika of a car and prika of an animal. He says that
the car was 'stuck,' implying that had it not been stuck, there would
have been no mitzva involved. With an animal, AIUI, there is a mitzva in
any event because of the tza'ar involved until such time as the animal's
burden is unloaded.

-- Carl

Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il> wrote:
> question that has long bothered me.

> Modern medicine has increased the life span from about 50 years in the
> year 1900 to about 75 years in recent years (depending on country and
> gender). Does that imply that people have become more virtuous in the
> last 100 years? Ramban takes it for granted that men live longer than
> women - it is now the opposite. Does that imply that women were less
> virtuous in his day and their behavior has since changed? 

As you pointed out, The Rambam holds that Teva trumps Schar V'Onesh.
I believe that Teva, which includes the advancement of modern medicine
has enabled mankind's longer lifespan. Women ststistically used to die
far more often in childbirth than the do today, hence reducing their
lifespan siginicantly over that of men back then.

I do not believe that our increased lifespan has anything to to with our
relative virtue as compared to our ancesters. Our Schar or Onesh can
be more or less than any given ancester's and is determined strictly
by our actions here on earth. We are then proportionally rewarded or
punished... here on earth or in the world to come.

It all comes out in the wash.

HM

On 16 Jun 2003 at 17:05, Harry Maryles wrote:
> Similiarly there is a story told about the Magid of Dubna who was once
> in the Beis HaMedrash with Rabbi E. Kramer on Shavuos night. The Magid
> was saying Tikun Leil Shavuos and the GRA was learning and was purported
> to have rebuked the Magid for saying Tikun rather than learning Gemmarah.

And of course the Magid answered that for the Gra, pleasure in Torah came
from delving into a sugya, but for the Magid, the Tikun Leil Shavuos
was his pleasure in Torah.... (Discussed by R. Shimshon Pinkus zt"l in
one of his sichot for Shavuos).

-- 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.

Joelirich@aol.com asked:
> 2. Does anyone know the reason for the cohanims' nigun? There are sources
> that discuss the issue of saying psukim/RBS"O during their nigun, but
> which came first-ie was the nigun added so that the kahal could say
> something while not breaking into the actual bracha or was the nigun
> always there and it was thus convenient to allow something to be said.
  ...
> If the latter, why don't the cohanim sing their nigun on shabbat(perhaps
> so as not to confuse the Kahal?)

IIRC the reason for Kohanim singing is to give the tzibur time to say
the attached tefilah of 'pisroin chaloimois' as mentioned in G'moro
brochos...(according to the G'moro, one is SUPPOSED to end his tefilah
at the same time that the koihanim end the nigun and say the next word
of birchas koihanim so the 'amen' that the tzibur says after the koihanim
will also apply to the tefilah that you just said quietly.)

The reason they DONT sing on shabbos is due to the fact that the tefilah
is a techinah and we are not supposed to say techinahs on shabbos,
so they don't give a chance to say it..

Micha wrote:
> ...and my love of singing along, I often sing along with the kohanim.
> 
> It was pointed out to me once that perhaps I ought to keep silent,
> that the nigun was itself part of the avodah, and therefore not for
> us non-kohanim.

my older son learned in Be'er Yaakov by Reb Moishe Shmuel Shapiro when
the Yeshivah was still in Har Nof (during the first Gulf War)..he told
me that during duchenen in the Yeshivah the tzibur ALL sang along with
the Koihanim, (including Rav Shapiro), ....it created a 'gevaldigeh
hisroimimus'..(something negineh could do)... and was VERY MOVING,
especially on Yom Kipur..

if there would of been a problem with the tzibur singing along OR if
the singing is part of the avodah, i think Rav Shapiro would of known
about it..

Simcha G

From: BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL
> R. Gil asked whether the Mitzvah of Perikah u'Tei'nah is operative with
> regard to helping someone unload matresses loaded on one's car (and not
> just with animals). The Minchat Chinuch 80 (who gives the source from
> a RALBAG in Parshat Mishpatim) indicates that:"hu ha'din im hu b'atzmo
> rovetz tachat massa'o". The RASHBA (Teshuvat haRashba I 252, 256 and 257)
> also holds that one is mechuyav (d'oraita) to help a human to unload
> sechora. Tosfot Rabbenu Peretz (Bava Kama 54b) holds that thgis is only
> a mitzva d'rabbanan.

> The ROSH Bava Metzia 32a clarifies that only one who is *batel mi'melacha*
> is mechuyav b'prika.

I beleive the Sha'arim M'tzuyanim b'Halacha addresses this issue and
IIRC does feel that the parallel between the Biblical case and modern
day sitatuations exist.

Elly Krimsky

> The Aruch HaShulchan and R' Moshe Feinstein disagreed.

But the AS at least clearly held it to be a bidieved.

Akiva

RMB:
> The oft quoted (here) Rambam, in Mamrim 2:2 is clear that minhagim are
> instituted by the beis din. Not a grass-roots from the masses.

RJR:
> However see Taanit 26b which implies certain minhagim were grass roots.

S Goldstein wrote:
: I would add half-Hallel to RJR's list.

RMB:
>This post-dates Sanhedrin. Still, I would ask where one has indication
>that the minhag started with the masses rather than the poseqim.

>Particularly since we're discussing tefillah, which implies a presence
>in shul and therefore many morei de'asra's approval.

Taanis 28b says Rav visited a town and saw them saying Hallel on
Rosh Hodesh. He thought to stop them. But when he saw they said only
half-Hallel he allowed them to continue with this practice.

It seems that Rav wasn't aware of a ruling to establish this custom for
Clal Yisroel, yet it happened. It could be it had the approval of a mara
d'asra like you said, but this is NOT like the Rambam with a minhag for
the clal.

Shlomo Goldstein

R' Carl Sherer wrote:
<<< There's an issur against eating before your animals eat. There is no
such issur against eating before your guests eat. Aderaba - your guests
are supposed to wait for you. The halacha is that the host is botzea.
Whether your guests "deserve at least a similar consideration" is not a
criterion recognized by halacha. ... I think you've introduced a western
notion of 'courtesy' that the halacha doesn't recognize. >>>

I always thought it goes both ways. The guests are supposed to be
courteous to the host, and the host is supposed to be courteous to the
guests. This is a western concept? Common courtesy is not recognized by
halacha? Do you think that the Chofetz Chaim (who, btw, was a kohen whom
we agree that we are chayav to give kavod to) was wrong for insisting
on making the bed for his houseguests?

<<< It would never occur to me to give children before their parents. Nor
would I want to give my own children before giving their friends'
parents. >>>

I would never suggest going out of one's way to give the children first.
Rather, we pass the challah plate from my end of the table to the other
end, and they receive it in order based on where they are sitting.
Generally, most of the adults are clustered together by my end, but
not necessarily.

<<< This makes no sense to me. If I am not supposed to distribute their
portions to them because doing so would be a hefsek, what is the point
of cutting their portions? They're going to have to wait either way! >>>

There are two advantages to cutting all the slices together:

(1) Several hundred milliseconds [I'm being somewhat facetious, I suppose;
no matter whose procedure we use, we're talking about shaving fractions
off of the already-quick total, aren't we?] are saved by picking the
knife up only once, putting it down only once, and sprinkling the salt
only once. Instead of cutting my slice, putting the knife down, salting
mine and putting it in my mouth, and then going back to cut the other
slices, salt them, and pass them out, instead I just make a few more
slices, salt them all together, and pass them out while I'm eating
mine. In other words, yes, they're going to have to wait either way,
but they wait slightly less my way. (IIRC, in Abazit, the technical term
for this procedure is "chick-chock". :-)

(2) It is true that my wait will be slightly longer, but the fact that
I get to choose my favorite of all those slices makes it worth it,
and negates the hefsek.

<<< Look at the Sha'ar Ha'Tziyun there (69). He says (translation mine),
"...But since they are not allowed to eat in any event, why should he
interrupt himself?" It should be apparent that the same line of reasoning
applies to the act of cutting the Challah. ... Since the guests cannot
eat anyway, why should the host lengthen his own hefsek? >>>

There is absolutely no advantage to passing the challah out to the
others before he eats, because they can't eat it yet, and that's the
Shaar HaTziyun's point. But there are some small advantages (see above)
in doing all the slicing before he eats.

Akiva Miller

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:25:52 -0400 "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org> writes:
<<I heard it fairly reliably in the name of R' Moshe Feinstein.>>

So did I, from Rabbi Pearl, with mar'eh mekomos, this morning.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

The Shemiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa 55:24 outlines the procedure for how
the baal habayis should distribute the challah. Unfortunately, his use
of the word "l'chalek" seems just as ambiguous as the Mishna Brurah's
use of that word, such that R' Carl Shere would translate it as "it is
best if he tastes his bread before slicing it for the others", while
I would translate it as "it is best if he [cuts many slices and then]
tastes his bread before distributing it to the others".

I mention this because there is a footnote on this point which might
help clarify it. Footnote 93 in the SSK there refers to the very same MB
as RCS and I discussed yesterday, and then adds this interesting note:
"But look at the 'Toras Shabbos', siman 274 note 4, that he should be
m'chalek to the others while he is still chewing."

Does anyone have (or know of) this sefer, "Toras Shabbos"? Does he write
anything else there which might be relevant?

It seems to me that if the baal habayis takes his own slice, puts it
in his mouth, and then starts cutting the other slices, it is likely
that he will have swallowed some before even the first person gets any,
and certainly before the last people get theirs. But if the baal habayis
cuts all the slices, and is the first of many to take a slice, then he
will certainly still be chewing while the others are getting theirs.

Akiva Miller

> <<< Some do not cover their hair at all and others do so partially. It
> must be stressed that this practice is roundly condemned by all poskim.
> There is not a single, solitary authority who finds a leniency for
> married women to have their hair uncovered(6). >>>

> The way Rabbi Neustadt phrased this, it sounds like he's saying that
> "There is not a single, solitary authority who finds any leniency at all,
> even for a partial uncovering."

> Yet, in his footnote right there, he says <<< 6... It must be stressed,
> that even those who are lenient do not allow more then a total of
> 2 tefachim by less than half a tefach of hair to show (a tefach is
> approximately 3.5 inches). See Igros Moshe E.H. 1:58 and O.C. 4:112. >>>

> In other words, there ARE lenient opinions to be found, such as Rav
> Moshe Feinstein, who allows an area of less than 1 square tefach to
> be uncovered.

> I believe that Rabbi Neustadt was imprecise with his words, ...

The problem is not Rabbi Neustadt but rather the source - R' Wagschall's
"Modesty, An adornment for LIfe" - that he is quoting from and apparently
relying on as the correct way of understanding Igros Moshe.

>See Modesty, An Adornment for Life, pg. 236-240, who explains that this
>custom has no basis in Halachah and should be discontinued. It must be
>stressed, that even those who are lenient do not allow more then a total
>of 2 tefachim by less than half a tefach of hair to show (a tefach is
>approximately 3.5 inches). See Igros Moshe E.H. 1:58 and O.C. 4:112.

R' Wagschall makes the following assertion [page 236]:" 2. ...As
mentioned, there is a general misconception concerning the nature of
the heter given in the Igros Moshe. People assume that Maran Hagaon
Harav Moshe Feinstein zt"l allowed women to leave less than a tefach
uncovered. This is totally incorrect. He allowed this only pressing
circumstances as is evident from the wording of the Responsum {He then
cites R' Dovid, R' Nissim Karelitz , R' Pam and R' Mattisyahu Salomon who
assert that R' Moshe did not give a blanket heter- D.E. }...[apart from
all the above, a discrepancy must be pointed out. The ruling mentioned
OC 4:112 is written in a Responsum dated 5717 and again in a Responsum
E.H. 1:58 dated 5721. There is, however, a third Responsum (O.C. 4:15)
dated 5732 in which it is written explicitly that even less than a
tefach of hair must be covered in line with other "covered areas"
of a woman's body which must be fully covered and even less than a
tefach may not be exposed {implying that R' Moshe changed his mind -
D.E.}...In addition to all the above, experience has shown that those
who are lenient quickly take liberties, willingly or accidentally
and expose more of their hair than the Iggros Moshe allows even under
the most pressing circumstances...It follows from all that has been
explained that the trend to wear a snood or beret which covers most but
not all the hair, is a departure from halacha and the derech hayashar -
the path followed by Klal Yisroel from the earliest times. To claim that
there is an unqualified heter by one of the Gedolei Hador of our times
to dress in this way, is fallacious as explained above"

He does not cite EH I #114 page 291 which seems to in fact give a heter
for all women. Furthermore when I mentioned R' Wagschall's assertion to
R' Bluth - R' Moshe's right hand man for many years - he said "If R'
Moshe had either retracted or limited his heter it is strange he never
told the Rebbetzen about it". As a solid general rule R' Moshe rarely
changed his mind.

In sum - Rabbi Neustadt is accurately transmitting the understanding of R'
Wagschall as to how to read the Igros Moshe. I personally think that R'
Wagschall's view of R' Moshe is questionable based on the reading of
"all the relevant teshuvos as well as what R' Bluth told me - but he
certainly has very solid sources that insist that is how R' Moshe should
be understood. Rabbi Neustadt does an excellent job of summarizing his
sources and I wouldn't be so quick to assume he was being sloppy. Final
call - as always - is with your LOR.

					 Daniel Eidensohn

From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
> I believe Modesty, An Adornment for Life was written by R' Pesach
> Eliyahu Falk of Gateshead.

My mistake - thanks for the correction. The rest of my comments remain
unchanged

RAM wrote in reponse to RGS
> In other words, there ARE lenient opinions to be found, such as Rav
> Moshe Feinstein, who allows an area of less than 1 square tefach to
> be uncovered.

> I believe that Rabbi Neustadt was imprecise with his words, and should
> have written <<< Some do not cover their hair at all and others do so
> partially. It must be stressed that the practice of not covering at all
> is roundly condemned by all poskim. There is not a single, solitary
> authority who finds a leniency for married women to have their hair
> totally uncovered(6). >>>

I think that RAM misunderstands the citation from RGS. He cites rav
Broyde's article, where he documents that there are authorities who find
a leniency for married women to have their hair totally uncovered.

Those authorities are (as rav Broyde points out) in the minority, and
one might want to argue with them or to suggest that they are such a
minority that they can not be relied upon. However, it is wrong to say
that that there are no authorities who find such a leniency - and such
exaggerations undermine the entire article by rav Neustadt (as well as,
unfortunately, the reliability of any other statements by him).

Meir Shinnar

Has anybody mentioned what seems to me to be fairly obvious?

The reason why men are able to control flatulence ( which is the pashtus
of guf naki in all hilchos tefillin) greater than women is practice. Men
have been practicing control since age 13, every day! That's experience.

Since the simple fact is that women do not put on tefillin, then even if
she wanted to we would recommend against it, because she is inexperienced
at self-control.

Perhaps a little balabatish, but possibly the simple peshat in the AHS.

Akiva

> RSF argues against both R' Elchanan Wasserman's and the Chazon Ish's
> approaches to the reason why we cannot disagree with Amoraim and why
> Amoraim could not disagree with Tannaim. He suggests that just like
> at kabbalas ha-Torah we accepted the Torah and made it binding on
> ourselves and our descendants, so too we accepted on ourselves the
> conclusions of the Talmud which can therefore never be disputed.

It should be noted that RSF's approach is apparently the Rambam's view
as stated in the introduction to Mishneh Torah and it is clearly that of
the Kesef Mishna (Hilchos Mamrim chapter 2). Chazon Ish had some harsh
words against the Kesef Mishna and also against R' Elchonon Wasserman
when he mistakenly thought that R' Elchonon had adopted the view of the
view of the Kesef Mishna.

Chazon Ish(Letters 2:14): The truth is that the generation after the
Mishna witnessed a decline in stature relative to the Tannaim. The
new generation knew for certain that the truth was always with the
Tannaim. Once they knew the truth of the matter that it was impossible
for them to comprehend something that had not been understood by one of
the Tannaim - it was no longer possible to disagree directly with the
Tannaim on their own authority. Therefore they only taught what they
understood to be the teachings of the Tannaim. Similarly with the close
of the Talmud the words of an amora - who was unaware of the teaching on
that matter of a tanna - were not null. The only exception being Rav who
because of his greatness his words were not null. All their conclusions
were reached with Divine guidance and ruach hakodesh which manifested
itself. Their rulings were in agreement with G-d as it says in Bava
Metzia 86a - Rebbe and Rav Nachman were the end of the Mishna. And thus
it was at the conclusion of the Talmud as it says that Ravina and Rav
Ashi were the end of hora'ah.

This that Rav Yosef Karo says that the authority came because the Jewish
people accepted them as authoritative (Kesef Mishna Hilchos Mamrim) -
he did not do us any kindness or good with the sages. The fact is that
their authority is because they had the truth....

Chazon Ish (Letters 1:15): It is at the roots of our faith that all
that is said in the gemora whether it is in the mishna or gemora
whether it is halacha or agada - all these things were revealed to us
by medium of prophetic power ... There is in fact a major distinction
between the power of prophecy and ruach hakodesh. Prophecy transcends
the human intellect entirely. therefore someone who has reached
the level of prophecy is able to acquire wisdom directly without any
intellectual effort or involvement. In contrast, ruach hakodesh requires
tremendous thought and analysis until he is given additional supernatural
understanding. Without this effort this special understanding is never
achieved. One of the fully accepted foundations of faith is that ruach
hakodesh is critical to properly understanding the truth in the Torah that
was given through prophecy. That is because Torah is not just probably
true but is absolutely true. Consequently we are greatly distressed to
hear any apersions cast on the words of Chazal whether it is halacha or
agada. It is equivalent to hearing blasphemy. A person who deviates in
this way is according to our tradition as one who denies the words of
chazal and his shechita is invalid and he is unfit to serve as a legal
witness and other issues.

Thus whether the source of authority is yeridas hadoros as stated in
Chazon Ish or public acceptance as stated in Kesef Mishna - seems to be
an old dispute that predates the Conservative movement.

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


[ 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         ]