Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 063

Monday, September 8 2003

• Re: Everett and bechira
• Re: web sites on shabbos
• Kaddish
• mechitza
• Re[2]: Women and kaddish
• Re: Parallel Universes
• Banim gidalti veromamti
• Re: web sites on shabbos
• Re: mechitza
• Re: Re[2]: Women and kaddish
• Kalaam was: Parallel Universes
• Women and kaddish
• halachic consensus
• consensus
• Adv: Pre-Rosh Hashanah Shabbos Program Schedule
• Re: public tzedakka
• Re: Women and kaddish
• ze sefer toldot adam
• Re: web sites on shabbos

On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 09:02:39PM -0400, Leonid Portnoy wrote:
: That would be all good, except for one thing - 'Eilu va'eilu' defines a
: set of possibilities (e.g. 70 facets of the Torah). The set is finite,
: not infinite...

I disagree. It's infinite, but not all inclusive.

Just as a finite number of Euclidean postulates can lead to an infinity
of geometry theorems.

On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:38:29PM -0400, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
:> The hope was that when all was said and done, there would be only one
:> solution to the theory's tangled equations, one answer corresponding
:> to only one possible universe. But recent progress in string theory
:> paradoxically seems to leave physics further than ever from that dream
:> of a unique answer. Instead of a single answer, the equations of string
:> theory seem to have so many solutions, millions upon millions of them,
:> each describing a logically possible universe, that it may be impossible
:> to tell which one describes our own.

: Comment: The more things change, the more they remain the same.

: A basic principle of Kalaam is that any possible imaginable circumstance
: can exist. Why doesn't everything then not exist? Because G-d chooses at
: every moment to sustain only some possibilities and not all others. That
: is a favorite Kalam proof of existence of G-d.

The difference is that contemporary science leads to the opposite
conclusion. The theory does not invoke G-d, rather it says they all
exist elsewhere in the multiverse.

A problem with science is that it can't invoke G-d as an explanaiton and
remain science. However, without invoking G-d, their list of solutions
remains abridged and it affects conclusions on physical topics. As we
see in this case.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

R' Micha Berger wrote <<< It would take a lot of work that only our
service provider's staff could do to have the web server not respect
aishdas.org requests and still work for anyone else's. >>>

Here's an interesting project for some web programmer guru to try:
Is it possible to write some HTML code which will look at the current
time and date on the pc, and then redirect the browser if it seems to
be local Shabbos?

For example, if the local clock reads between 4 PM Friday and 8 PM
Saturday, send the user to a specific page which has some nice gentle
words about the kedusha of Shabbos, and a request to come back later?

Yes, I'm sure it would be a lot of work to insert such code into every
single page on the site, but maybe just for the Home Page, at least. Or
maybe it can be put into some frequently-used subroutine - like where
the logo is displayed, or something.

Disclaimer: I'm not convinced that we're obligated to do anything about
the problem. I only suggest this idea because perhaps there's a programmer
out there who might consider such a project to be fun. I sure would,
if I knew more about web design.

Akiva Miller

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> ... If, OTOH, I am davening with the minyan, and
> nobody else says kaddish, I should say it even though I am not an avel.

IIRC, it's a Remoh, that after Oleinu someone - even if he has parents
[who are not makpid], should say Kaddish - as it is part of the seder
hatefilah.

SBA

From: Eli  Turkel <turkel@nianet.org>
> Micha writes
>> In the Ashkenaz of the rishonim, shuls typically didn't have
>> mechitzos. Women simply didn't attend. That's what I had pictured was
>> the mishnaic norm too, ...

> I was once in the alte-neu shul  in Prague
> and the shul has a section for women behind a stone wall with a small
> opening. I believe that this section was added after the original but
> even then would date to the early achronim at the very latest.

Is there any mention at all in Mishna/Gemoro/Midrash about women in Shul?

SBA

On Thursday, September 4, 2003, 6:41:15 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
MB> On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 05:31:57PM -0500, sacksa@cch.com wrote:
MB> : In the thread below, Aryeh Stein suggests that there should be halachic
MB> : consensus before women are permitted to say kaddish b'kol ram at a
MB> : minyan because it is otherwise distracting....

[snip]

MB> However, even though it's unfair, the issue does have broad communal
MB> impact. It has been tied, due to the forces of history, sociology and
MB> politics, to the broader issue of what kinds of changes in women's roles
MB> in yahadus are appropriate.

MB> Even if you believe that the threat of slippery slope or the impact
MB> on those who will always stay one step more radical than the norm are
MB> neglectable, isn't that alone a halachic issue involving the whole
MB> Orthodox community?

I think you have just made my case that the issue of women saying kaddish
is as much, if not more so, a sociological issue as it is a halachic
issue. Precisely because so much more attention is given to this than
is given to the much more widespread distraction of shmoozing during
t'fillah, it seems to me that halacha is used as a veil for prejudices
not grounded in halacha. When men stop creating distractions on their
side of the m'chitza, arguments by men about what kinds of activity
on the other side of the m'chitza can be considered to be halachically
prohibited distractions will be more compelling.

Kol tuv,
Avram Sacks

In a message dated 9/4/03 Mlevinmd@aol.com writes [in] Avodah V11 #62:
> A basic principle of Kalaam is that any possible imaginable circumstance
> can exist. Why doesn't everything then not exist? Because G-d chooses at
> every moment to sustain only some possibilities and not all others. That
> is a favorite Kalam proof of existence of G-d.


Kalaam?  What is Kalaam?

Toby Katz 

Check out these two pesukim:
    - Divrei Hayamim I 25/4
    - Yeshaya 1/2

Is there a connection? 

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

RAM suggested (with the caveat that he isn't convinced it's necessary):
> Here's an interesting project for some web programmer guru to try: Is it
> possible to write some HTML code which will look at the current time and
> date on the pc, and then redirect the browser if it seems to be local
> Shabbos?

In theory, AishDas could do it. There's a file that gets auto-included in
every aishdas.org page.

However, how is that any help? How would serving a page that stands on the
corner yelling "Shabbes! Shabbes!" to the passersby be less of an issur than
serving a page with Torah on it? For that matter, the ISP couldn't turn us off
either -- they would also call up a dummy page.

Efshar lomar the idea has merit because they'd only try to load one page and
not a full browse. More likely, they'd just browse somewhere else.

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905

RSBA wrote:
> Is there any mention at all in Mishna/Gemoro/Midrash about women in Shul?

In v11n58, R' Chaim Brown cited Sotah 22:
> an almanah went out of her way to daven at r'
> yochanan's bais midrash, and when r' yochanan asked why she did not go
> to the shul closer to her home she said she wanted more schar halicha.
> The implication is that there is schar for davening b'tzibbur, or at
> least in a beit knesset, even for a woman (r' yochanan's kashe was why
> she went to the further away shule, not why she bothered to come at all).
> I would presume she was sitting in the ezras nashim.

:-)BBii
-mi

RASacks wrote:
> Even if you believe that the threat of slippery slope or the impact
> on those who will always stay one step more radical than the norm are
> neglectable, isn't that alone a halachic issue involving the whole
> Orthodox community?

> I think you have just made my case that the issue of women saying kaddish is
> as much, if not more so, a sociological issue as it is a halachic issue...

Actually, I argued that it's an issue, that, due to sociological ties, has
great halachic impact. It therefore can't be "more so".

The sociological issue, even (as I wrote) given that it's unfair, is part of
the metzi'us the poseiq is dealing with. You can't simply dismiss the
connection as "it's only social" and therefore have the LOR make decisions
that will effect the community at large. The correctness of the existance of
the connection between women saying qaddish in one shul and issues of changing
the role of women in halakhah is not at issue. It exists.

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905

RnRK asked:
> In a message dated 9/4/03 Mlevinmd@aol.com writes [in] Avodah V11 #62:
>> A basic principle of Kalaam is that any possible imaginable circumstance
>> can exist. Why doesn't everything then not exist? Because G-d chooses at
>> every moment to sustain only some possibilities and not all others. That
>> is a favorite Kalam proof of existence of G-d.

> Kalaam?  What is Kalaam?

The Kalaam are a school of Islamic Scholasts. It's the Kalaam who created a
market for Aristotle and Plato in Arabic, and thereby made their philosophy
available to R' Saadia Gaon and the Rambam.

The end of the Moreh cheileq I and the beginning of cheileq II makes frequent
mention of their position and contrasts his own to it. (Their is some mention
elsewhere.) It is one of those contrasts that RML is referring to.

:-)BBii
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905

From: sacksa@cch.com
> Isn't shmoozing during t'fillot a much more pervasive problem?
> Shouldn't we be directing our energies more in that direction?

So?

If we have problems X,Y,Z, and Z is a greater problem than X, then we
ignore X?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Micha implies that any issue that is controversial and might lead to a
sliipery slope cannot (or better should not) be paskened by the LOR by
only by community consensus.

Of course this avoids the question of what constitutes a community.
More important it takes a lot of power away from the LOR.
Any issue with regard to women's issues, eg women's megilla reading,
women carrying a sefer Torah on simchat Torah, seperate minyan to repeat
Parshat Zachor etc cannot be paskened by a LOR or maybe even a greater
posek unless there is general consensus of everyone (alright almost
everyone) on the issue.

May be a shul cannot decide to say hallel (with/without) a beracha on
Yon ha_azmaut or YY because it will lead to other problems and one needs
a community consensus.
Obviously one can continue the list.

On a more halachic side 'lo titgodu' does not apply to 2 courts in the
same city which in modern terms basically is each shul (in cities that
have a real community like Washington heights Elizabeth etc it would
indeed be the community).

On a wider look I am very unhappy with slippery slide arguments. That is
the basis of the "Hungarian" (sorry no slur to native Hunks on the list)
attitude that nothing can ever change becaise it leads to a slippery
slope.
Maybe we should also be teaching our kids in yiddish and any school
that disagrees has no right to do so because it is a community issue
that might lead to a slippery slope.

shabbat shalom,
Eli Turkel

Micha and others feel that major issues that affect the community can
only be decided by consensus.

Question - what do we do with issues like in vitro fertilization where
most poskim allow it but R. Elyashiv does not and some may even feel
that there are issues of mamzerut.
This is an even more serious issue in other cases where clearly R. Moshe
allowed cases that others clearly considered mamzerut.

Can a LOR be mekil like RMF even though there is no consensus?
Does one need a substantial minority of poskim? A majority of poskim or
possibly an overwhelming majority of poskim?

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

								    B"H
			    Rosh Hashanah is coming.
			      Can we honestly say
			  Ana Avda deKudsha Berich Hu?

			    A weekend of preparation
			 for an audience with the King


    "You already know well the great benefit to be acquired for one's
    entire life from one Elul day in Slabodka."
					- Be'ikvos Hayir'ah

		   Join AishDas for our first annual program
		     encountering, discussing and debating
		some of the basic issues of avodas Hashem today

		    Elul 23rd, 5763 / September 19-20, 2003
			 At Ahavas Israel, Passaic, NJ

			     For application, click
		<http://www.aishdas.org/shabbos_elul.html#form>


				    Schedule

Friday

   4:00		Welcoming table opens

   6:41		Candle lighting

   6:44		Mincha, Kabbalas Shabbos, Ma'ariv

   8:00		Dinner

   9:30		Va'ad:
		Menuchas Hanefesh: How to deal with everything from
		"road rage" to the uncooperative child

   10:15	Oneg Shabbos



Shabbos Day

   8:30		Shacharis, Kiddush

   11:15	Va'ad:
		Connection and Commitment: Balancing the roles of finding
		a personal connection to mitzvos, and of developing a
		sense of duty.

   12:00	Lunch


   5:15		Va'ad:
		Mireishis Hashanah: How can we make sure we will not be
		in the same place next Elul as we are today?

   6:00		Divrei Hisorerus

   6:15		Mincha

   6:45		Shaleshudis

   7:48		Ma'ariv

		       Full participation: $50 per person
			 Food and babysitting provided
		 Attendance for only speeches and ve'adim, free

		For more information, or to offer housing, call
		       The AishDas Society (973) 757-0246
			  or email <elul@aishdas.org>

In a message dated 09/04/2003 8:13:39 AM EDT, Shlomo Goldstein
goldstin@netvision.net.il writes:
> the Rema in hilchos tzedaka YD 249:13 recommends publicizing the name
> of a donor. The Shach in Nkudos haKesef there quotes the Rashba that
> the purpose is to encourage others to give.

> Obviously this method is to tickle the yetzer hara of me and the next guy.
> The religiously alert would prefer to do the mitzva silently. But who
> says our dor (or shul) is not frummer than that of the Rashba (and Rema
> and Shach)!

Yes but...
This siman has always fascinated me. Firstly because the flow of the
S"A is the levels of tzeddaka(to an ani) where dual anonynimity is
the higher level. The Rama then comments on tzedaka(did he mean to
an ani?) and says that one shouldn't be mitpaer through tzedaka and if
one is, then he's punished! Then he seems to do a 180 and says umicol
makom one is permitted to put one's name on a dvar tzedaka(seems like
not talking about an ani here?) for the particular purpose of being a
zikkaron (and that LA"D is why the taz and bar heitiv say the reason
it's allowed is so that the tzibbur won't be able to switch it's use)
and then the Rama continues to a 360 and says it's raui.(the end refers
to the Rashba which in my book s/btaf kuf peh alef-not bet) which draws
on examples of publicity value(but really after the fact examples) but
seems to focus on schar for the mitzvah(just mentions liftoach delet at
the end. The nekudot hakesef you quote doesn't understand the Taz(I'm
not sure why) and goes with the Rashba l.

All in all Lmaaseh it's accepted but again it's not clear to me that
this is a ringing endorsement.

KVCT
Joel Rich

RAS wrote
> While your point is well taken, I disagree that a woman saying kaddish is
> only an issue of minhagei tefilah and a private matter.  If a woman wants to
> say kaddish quietly while another man says it aloud, I don't think anyone
> would really care, as it really doesn't effect anyone else.  However, I
> think an argument can be made that when she says it aloud, it becomes an
> "issue that affects the entire community," and a halachic consensus is
> required.  IOW, matters of private tefilah are private, but matters of
> public tefilah are public.

I didn't argue that it wasn't a public matter - but the public affected is the 
public of the shul - and therefore it is within the purview of the mara d'atra 
of the shul, rather than affecting all the tfillot of klal yisrael.  Whether a 
particular shul adopts a particular minhag according to a particular derech is 
a public matter - but the question is which public.

[Email #2. -mi]

> As pointed out already, that's a problem within the shul, and therefore
> I would figure the marah de'asra has sufficient authority.

> However, even though it's unfair, the issue does have broad communal
> impact. It has been tied, due to the forces of history, sociology and
> politics, to the broader issue of what kinds of changes in women's roles
> in yahadus are appropriate.

> Even if you believe that the threat of slippery slope or the impact
> on those who will always stay one step more radical than the norm are
> neglectable, isn't that alone a halachic issue involving the whole
> Orthodox community?

Just the fact that some people think it affects the entire Jewish
community doesn't make it so. It may well affect that particular Jewish
community - and the naysayers may be concerned that that particular
community is on the slippery slope out - but how does saying kaddish
in Teaneck affect the Jewish community in Boro Park??? There is far
more ground to say that the local mara d'atra has the knowledge of the
community to determine whether it is beneficial or harmful. The broader
issue of what kind of changes in women's role in yahadus are appropriate
is precisely a community based one - the answer in Williamsburg is
not the right answer in Great Neck, as women's general societal role
is quite different. Of couse, because of areivut issues, observance
everywhere is of some concern to us, but there has been no good reason
(outside of the passions it arouses) for this to be any different than
any other community based issue. (parenthetically, the position of RYBS
on the issue of WTGs (opposed to WTGs, pro kaddish) is quite revealing -
even by the girsa of R Mayer Twersky about the strong opposition of RYBS,
expressed to everyone who asked him, he never formulated a public message
to the community about it - leaving it to the local mara d'atras, even
though he was opposed to it)

Meir Sihnnar

A while back (I was away), RYGB formulated a novel pshat of the machloket
of ben azzai and rabbi akiva, about ze sefer toldot adam vs ve'ahavta
le're'acha camocha.

This is quite a novel pshat, and perhaps may fit the text in the
yerushalmi and the sifra, although every commentator I have seen
(from the raavad to the malbim on the sifra to the mefarshim of the
yerushalmi)interpretes in some variant that ben azzai is referring to
a concept of universal brotherhood of man rather than limited to klal
yisrael. Does anyone besides RYGB interprete ben azzai as reflecting
on individual growth rather than universal brotherhood?

Furthermore, this machloket is also brought down in breshit rabba on
the pasuk ze sefer toldot addam, where there is far more extensive
discussion than in the other two places (where ben azzai's statement is
merely brought as a counterpoint to rabbi akiva, without any discussion).
RYGB's pshat does not (IMHO) seem to fit with that discussion.

Meir Shinnar

What about accessing the Ha'aretz web site from theStates after it's
already Shabbos in Eretz Yisrael? I believe that they continue to update
it  even on Shabbos. 

It would seem that there would not only be an issue of benefitting from
this Chilul Shabbos (forget the hairsplitting about what's considered
"hana'ah"), but also of encouraging it: The more "hits", the more
motivated they will be to update the content. 

Dovid Hojda

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


[ 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         ]