Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 095

Sunday, February 15 2004

• Re: Sefiros according to REED
• HP vs S&P, was: Sefiros according to REED
• Preparation for Torah Study
• Re: Giyur
• Re: Giyur
• Re: Giyur
• more on red bendels and the like
• Re: omek peshuto shel mikra
• omek peshuto shel mikra
• Re: omek peshuto shel mikra
• Re: omek peshuto shel mikra]
• RE: Giyur
• Re: omek peshuto shel mikra
• Re: Giyur
• Re: kol isha al hayam?
• Re: Direction of Tefillah
• Yisro's advice

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> But not every event need to be sechar or onesh. It could be a nisayon
> that the person must overcome in order to merit more sechar;

sechar

> or a bit of
> assistance in order to avoid a nisayon the person couldn't handle,

avoiding onesh (=sechar)

DR

On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 11:13:44AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
:> But not every event need to be sechar or onesh. It could be a nisayon
:> that the person must overcome in order to merit more sechar;

: sechar

:> or a bit of
:> assistance in order to avoid a nisayon the person couldn't handle,

: avoiding onesh (=sechar)

These examples of HP are opportunities to earn future sechar, or avoiding
future onesh. Not the actual meting out of din, the sechar va'onesh itself.

:-)BBii
-mi

From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>

> This week's TorahWeb devar Torah is a short comment from mv"r R' Mayer
> Twersky about the importance of preparing before learning Torah. One of
> the best pieces of advice I heard from him was that a good, serious
> davening will greatly help your morning seder. It does not sound intuitive
> but my experience is that it works extremely well. If you start your day
> with ruchniyus then you change the whole day.

> http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2004/parsha/rtwe_yisro.html

Yup. This comes from the fourth part of Nefesh haChayim. As I
mentioned here years ago, it's one of the places where the Chasidim and
Misnagdim split. The Chasidim, e.g. the second & fifth Rebbes of Chabad,
recommended that one spend an hour or so meditating on a Chassidic
concept, basically, studying a maamar or something, so as to prepare
the mind for davening. Here, following R' Chayim Volozhin, R' Twersky
recommends davening or other emotional preparation for Torah study.
Same two princples (davening and lerning), different priorities.

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

From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
> I don't believe there is a halacha to discourage giyur or even not
> to push it. 

i don't recall if someone mentioned this yet.

Shulchan Aruch YD 268:2...a very lengthy s'eef...it is mashmeh that
there IS an halacha to discourage somewhat...and i want to emphasize
the SOMEWHAT.. ...a'yen shom

> Everyone cites the reisha about telling a candidate for
> giyur all about the down side, but nobody cites the seifa of the same
> piece, about how one must also explain the up side,...  

again...this is all spelled out in the s'eef that i mentioned...exactly
like your post..

gut shabbos
Simcha G

Dr. M. Levin asked <<< I have a related question. Wouldn't after the
nisim of YamSuf it be considered as in the days of Dovid and Shelomo
when they did not accept geirim? >>>

Great question. It appies not only to Yisro's family but to the entire
Ayrev Rav as well, no? So to rephrase the above, what was the difference
between Days Of Moshe And Ahron (when gerim were accepted) and Days Of
Dovid And Shlomo (when they weren't)?

Akiva Miller

simchag@att.net wrote:
> Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
>> I don't believe there is a halacha to discourage giyur or even not
>> to push it.

>i don't recall if someone mentioned this yet.

> Shulchan Aruch YD 268:2...a very lengthy s'eef...it is mashmeh that there IS
> an halacha to discourage somewhat...and i want to emphasize the SOMEWHAT..
>...a'yen shom

This is exactly what I mean. That se'if is more or less verbatim from the
Rambam, who got it from the gemara. But look at the seifa of that very
same se'if: 'ein marbin ve'ein medakdekin alav'. And the Rambam explains
why: lest it frighten him off. The point is *not* to discourage giyur
at all; on the contrary, the point is to *encourage* giyur, but with a
rigorous screening of candidates. We *want* geirim, the more the better,
but we're only interested in quality geirim, who will stick around even
when the going gets rough. We don't want people who will hang around
for a few years and then leave; if they're going to leave eventually,
better that they don't start.

Think of it like a company looking for executive-level employees.
They definitely want to hire people, but they have to be the right people.
They will conduct rigorous screening, not because they want to discourage
applicants, but because they want to make sure that they don't hire
someone who's going to leave in six months or a year.

>> Everyone cites the reisha about telling a candidate for
>> giyur all about the down side, but nobody cites the seifa of the same
>> piece, about how one must also explain the up side,...  

> again...this is all spelled out in the s'eef that i mentioned...exactly like your post..

Yes, but the idea that we want to discourage giyur, that we accept geirim
only reluctantly, comes from reading only the reisha, and ignoring
the seifa. The seifa completely reverses the picture, and shows what
the reisha really means.

(posting from on board http://www.limoliner.com, somewhere on the
Mass Pike)

Having recently responded to the question of red bendels by posting
the Tosefta in Shabbos which seems to suggest that their use may well
be midarkei haemorei - i was wondering what the chevra thought of the
following: yesterday while in a "seforim"/"judaica" store i noticed
a display of crystals and hamsas - i found this quite upsetting -
when i asked the shopkeeper what basis such things had in Yahadus - he
proceeded to tell me that they are made by compnay x... - I explained
that to my knowledge these things not only had no mekor in Yahadus -
as popular as they might be -but they are actually rooted in Avodah
Zorah - the HAMSA - as far as I know has its origins in the Hand of
Fatima (daughter of Mohamed) - enough said and as for the crystals -
i dont think any comment is needed - ANY THOUGHTS???

Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
>See, I disagree with this approach. It is an academic driven approach that
>misses the heart of what Torah means for a believing Jew. If everything
>is shrouded in mist, then there can be no binding meaning and the Torah
>cannot make unequivocal demands on us.

I am rather suprised at your response. I am not advocating an academic
driven approach. I am advocating acknowledging the reality that there
are a variety of legitimate definitions of peshat and derash. To assert
that it is necessary to ignore or deny this in order for Torah to be
binding is astounding. Are you asserting that the essence of Torah must
be inspiration and that the acknowledging of the existence of different
understandings destroys this inspiration? I had the opportunity to
raise this issue with Rav Eliyashiv a number of years ago - and he said:
"Not to teach that there are disagreements on fundamental issues [e.g.,
the source of rabbinic authority] because it might cause confusion is
not justified. That is why a person has a rebbe or rosh yeshiva."

I would agree that if you are teaching the ignorant - especially those
who lack emunas chachomim and have no rebbe - such a concern might well
be appropriate. Such a description is not applicable to the members of
this group. An academic approach is one that lists all possible views
without concern with mesorah and one that doesn't differentiate a minority
view from that which is main stream. It also utilizes analyses which are
dependent upon secular theories and concept rather than that which has
been taught over the ages. My citation of Prof. Harris was because he
does give a comprehensive survey of what gedolim have presented through
the ages. Even though it is in fact an academic work, the members of
this group are well able to handle this material - while it might be
inappropriate for a 16 year old yeshiva bachur.

>At the same time, there is wide range of interpretation out there. The
>classic approach of classifying them as pshat, drash or sod brings clarity
>for to classify something is already to uderstand it in some fashion.

I have no problem with using the classic categories, however  I do think 
it is appropriate to clearly define and understand what these categories 
mean - and to acknowledge the various legitimate meanings.

>As to the last point that you made, recent academic work on interpretation
>points out that there truly is a different Semitic way of experiencing
>the world. Jews perceive the world as coming out of the word of Hashem
>and, therefore, full of complexities and shading and echoes. To a Greek
>and also a Westerner, the Logos gave birth to world of sight. We aim to
>understand by seeing, unambigously. Therefore, the text is either what it
>says or an allegory. We, in contrast, see different ways of interpreting
>as co-existent.

Your characterization of the Jewish approach is in fact what I am
advocating. How do reconcile your advocacy of perceiving complexities and
shadings with your objection to acknowledging that there are different
ways of understanding peshat?

I simply don't understand your objection to my comments and why you are
labeling and dismissing them as being "academic".

           Daniel Eidensohn

I agree absolutely that the problem of differentiating peshat from
derash is *very* far from simple.   In my book, I shy away from the use
of those terms altogether, preferring to talk about whether a midrash is
engaged in parshanut or darshanut (I explain why when I discuss these
terms in my introduction).  Whether or not one agrees that Rashi is
primarily presenting peshat, I think no one would dispute that he is
engaged in parshanut.  (Actually, Prof Yona Fraenkel might, but he has
somewhat unusual views about Rashi--Nehama Leibowitz was choleket on him
very vociferously.)  Perhaps the reason that I dare to talk about peshat
and derash at all is because I generally teach non-halachic portions of
the Torah, and usually teach Nach, in fact.  I think that the case of
halacha is different--I am inclined to see halachic derivations from
pesukim as asmachta, not as derived from the parshanut of the pesukim.
(Not that I am in any way an expert in these matters.  Aderaba.  It just
seems simpler to say and easier to defend.  I also suspect that that is
the reason midrash halacha as the primary form of deriving halacha dies
out fairly early and the Mishna--and subsequently the Talmud--takes
over.  It is hard to see how one could derive all halachot from the
pesukim of the Torah no matter how thoroughly one reads them.)

I have actually just started read the Harris book--recommended to me by
a colleague, so I can't comment on your quote or discuss the book as
yet, (though the quote seems to me rather uncontroversial) but it might
be fruitful to discuss this a bit further on.

Kol tuv,
(and Shabbat shalom)
Simi Peters

[Email #2, in reply to RDE. -mi]

I understand your concern with my approach and it seems to me
eminently reasonable. For one thing, for any approach to have validity
educationally, it has to be, as you say, "usable within the system."
For another, as my students sometimes ask me, "If you're not basing
yourself on meforshim, how do you know you're right?"--a perfectly
legitimate question (and one for which I have an answer--more below).

The problem is, as you know, that there is very little parshanut on
midrash (and though there is more on aggada, there is little enough on
that as well). Most of the meforshim "on the page" in standard editions,
are more like biurim, not perushim. By this I mean that they generally
do things like offer definitions, correct girsaot, refer the reader to
other versions of the midrash and other relevant cross-references, and
sometimes offer brief comments about the overall message of the midrash.
(The Maharsha, for example, is frustratingly concise.) Part of my
problem with "citing and integrating traditional sources" is that there
are so few of them which deal with midrash at any length. Those that
do--like the Maharal (who mostly discusses aggada and not midrash) and
the Chassidish gedolim, usually approach from a machshava perspective,
not a parshanut-on-Tanach perspective. I have gained enormously from
learning these sources, but they have not often been helpful in using
midrash as parshanut. That said, in my book, I do quote authoritative
sources where I have found them helpful; I would never have been able
to figure out the midrash from Bereshit Rabba discussed in Chapter 14
without the Maharzu and the other commentaries cited. I also quote
authoritative sources (e.g., the Abarbanel, the Radak, the Malbim and
others) for related ideas in my discussions of various midrashim.

Of course, this does not solve your problem with my approach. All I can
say is that if we are asking questions which our indisputably greater
predecessors did not ask (or raising issues that seemed self-evident
to them), we will have to find answers as best we can. This does not
free us of the obligation to make sure that our understandings of sifrut
Chazal are as intellectually honest and as full of yirat Shamayim as we
can possibly make them. When my students ask me how I know I'm "right",
I tell them that I don't, in any absolute sense. I do point out, though,
that my readings are reasoned and careful and that I am willing to hear
any argument that offers a better reading of the language than my own.
I also point out--and this is the most important part--that I try to make
sure that my understandings of the texts are in keeping with ahavat and
yirat Hashem. A priori, I dismiss readings that violate the tenets of
Torah (in the broad sense). If I can't defend my readings theologically,
they don't get aired.

When I first started teaching and writing this material, I approached a
great talmid chacham here in Yerushalayim to check that the approach I
had been developing had a chezkat kashrut. (I do not want to quote him
publicly by name, because I don't know if that is something he would
be comfortable with, but anyone who contacts me off-list is welcome
to the information.) At the time, he told me that he liked what I was
doing and thought it was important. He also gave me excellent advice
about how to proceed and issued three important warnings which I have
kept in mind ever since. He told me, first, that I shouldn't fall in
love with my own methodology (that is not how he phrased it), i.e., that
I should bear in mind that there are many other ways of understanding
midrash and not all midrashim would yield productively to my methods.
Second, he told me not to ever lose sight of the fact that the purpose of
talmud Torah is to increase yirat Shamayim in the world, i.e., I should
never teach a midrash or a reading that would decrease yirat Shamayim.
(He agreed with me that teachings which would be appropriate for one
population might be inappropriate for another but that, I think, is fairly
obvious to any educator.) Finally, he told me that it is very important
"lo lesalef et hamidrash" which, based on his examples, meant not to
read the text with an agenda (as far as that is possible for anyone).

So I understand your problem, but I can't offer an easy solution. If I
were a real talmid chacham, personal reputation might lend legitimacy
to my approach, but I'm not, so that doesn't work. At the same time,
it would be a shame if midrash continued to be skimmed, skipped, or
understood at a shallow level in the yeshiva-chareidi world. Maybe if
people like you quote this kind of material or start offering this
approach (or a version of it) to others, it might make some inroads...

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters

I would like to elaborate as I now have a little more time after
Shabbos. It seems to me that all considerations of pshat and drash need
to start from Rashi because he is the commentator that defines the space
of Jewish exegesis, bse he is so familiar that his comentary defines the
standard, and bse he translates the literature of Chazal into commentary.

Any dsicussion of Rashi must explain three points:
1. Why he chooses to use certain midrashim and not others

2. Why his explanation so often appear to be in that hard to define
space that is neither drash nor pshat. He often chooses to overlook
obvious difficulties tha the Ramban, the Raem and others point out;
he also often contradicts himself fror place to place, betraying a lack
of concern about consistency that puzzles. It is also notable that he
chose to shape pre-existent midrashim for his purposes rather than write
a commentary in his own words which no other mforash had done.

3. It must explain scattered references regarding the mehtod that he
chooses to use (f.e. Breishis3,8;Shmos 6,9 and others).

It seems to me tha Rashi established his comentary in the space
that he termed pshat, namely, explanations that fit best in the local
context. This is different from mashmao and omek hapshat. The former is
apparent meaning and the latter is a method that he often chooses not
to use.The example form parshas Yisro that I quoted on the last post is
a good example. Why would he do that? The Lubavitcher Rebbe suggested
that Rashi meant to wrote a universal peirush, something that even
a pre-cocious child of 5 (ben 5 lemikra) could use to understand the
posulk that he is learning and does not care about wider interpretive
issues. To me, what he is saying is that explaining the local context
is most important.

Other commentators had different goals and each weighed and considered
different facets. The Ramban for example, is a good example of someone
who methodically considered context, other usages, logic and theology
to form an explanation. The Radak was more given to use grammar and
prevalent custom of his time.

The Rashbam had a theory that halacha was encoded in the text's usage of
extra language and he used a lot of context (The example that Mrs. Peters
brings tries to establish pshat based on cognate usage';although it
rejects a particular proof, it betrays the general method.See Rashbam
to Breishis 32,29). Ibn Ezra also had a method which he explains in the
introduction but that deserves a separate extended discussion. This is
what I mean by collating otehr usages, grammar, knowledge of general
culture and psychology, chazal and personal expereince and that is what I
call omek hapshat. The other commentators argues with Rashi because they
worked on the level of omek hapshat and he intentionally often did not.

That is not to say that Rashi's commentary does not contain a great
deal of omek hapshat. It does. But it does becasue it contains so many
midrashic comments,many of which are omek hapshat. This what rashi means
that he "comes to explain pshuto shel mikra and agada hamiasheves divrei
hamikra davar davur al ofanav(Breish 3,8)". Each matter accorrding to its
(own) ofen - local context over distant context.

Paradoxically, much of modern critical commentary employs a similar
method becasue it believes only in local context and does not think that
anything needs to be reconciled.

The important lesson from Rashi is that limited goals for a commentary
are legitimate. You do not ahve to give the "best" explanation but the
best explanation that serves a function. This, in itself, is very
Jewish. Midrash routinely gives "partial" explanations that direct
themselves to some problems and not others. For them, we will say
a different explanation, that also may leave some facets not well
adressed. This is analogous to looking at a building first form the east
side and then from the west sie, because you will anyway not encompass
all of it at once.

I have thought about these issues a great deal and I am very appreciative
of the opportunity to bring them out for a wider discussion.

[Email #2. -mi]

I apologise. What you yourself said is fine and sensible. I saw
red when I saw the quotation and I overreacted. The problem is the
quotation which is striking but very objectionasble. I did not mean
to dismiss your approach but only to comment on the citation that you
brought. If you re-readIthat citation, I think you may agree that it
is saying that the Chazal lived in a different world than we do now
and that their approach is simply incomprehensible nor is it binding
on us who see things differently. This is what he said: The approach of
early Jcwish darshanim to the legal sections of the Torah - an approach
that said to the text, "Be silent until I interpret you"-struck the
emerging modern mind as simply preposterous. Jews and Gentiles alike
considered the rabbinic reading of Scripture to represent the epitome of
intellectual decadence. Who could honestly believe that Scripture intended
to prohibit selling cheeseburgers when it said, "Do not seethe a kid in
its mother's milk"? Who could honestly believe that Scripture intended
to exclude relatives from serving as formal witnesses at a wedding? Who
could honestly believe that Scripture intended anything beyond what
it actually stated and what it obviously took for granted? The answer
offered by many is that no one could.".

It is fashonable in some quarters to dismiss Chazal's statements as quaint
and interesting remanants of another culture and of a different time and
mindset. There is some truth to that but only in regards to form. What
that obligates us to do is to engage in translation of culture to culture
just as we translate language to language.

Again, please accept my apologies; I should have known better.

M. Levin

Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
> I apologise. What you yourself said is fine and sensible. I saw red 
> when I saw the quotation and I overreacted. The problem is the 
> quotation which is striking but very objectionasble....
> It is fashonable in some quarters to dismiss Chazal's statements as 
> quaint and interesting remanant sof another culture and of a different 
> time and mindset. There is some truth to that but only in regards to 
> form. What that obligates us to do is to engage in translation of 
> culture to culture just as we translate language to language.

Apology accepted. The quote describes the way the modern western greek
mind does indeed view chazal. The Maharal amongst other spent much
energy to translate chazal in terms intelligible to the non traditional
mind. Part of this enterprise involved the definition of peshat. R'
Kupperman's introduction to Meshech Chochma notes that the Meshech Chochma
was not involved in the battle to prove that derash is peshat and thus
could focus on what the text was actually saying. Not being on your level
of knowledge and expertise concerning medrash - I had hoped to learn
some of the nuances of how gedolei Torah view peshat and medrash i.e.,
how they see the text. In particular the differences between the Malbim,
R' S. R. Hirsch and the Ramban. This involves not only Medrash Rabbah
but also medrash halacha. Looking forward to your comments

Daniel Eidensohn

Dr. M. Levin asked <<< I have a related question. Wouldn't after the
nisim of YamSuf it be considered as in the days of Dovid and Shelomo
when they did not accept geirim? >>>

I've heard these sorts of questions asked before. Basically, pointing out
an inconsistency between a (somewhat contemporary) halachic idea/concept
and the behavior of biblical figures. Am I the only one that finds this
a bit strange? I mean, on a purely academic level, it's an interesting
thing to reconcile, but I never figured that people take it seriously
enough to really feel a resolution is necessary.

Is this really how people feel? That immediately after Matan Torah the
Jews were keeping everything in the Mishna Brura and Shmiras Shabbos
k'Hilchoso? Doesn't the fact that these were different times with
different people in very different societies mean anything? Yes, I
understand that there are certain unchanging principles in Halacha, but
didn't much of halacha also develop over time, in response to different
circumstances? (The attitude towards geirus definitely seeming a likely
candidate for one of those possible changes.)

Am I the only one feels this way? Is this so heretical I should be
keeping my mouth shut about it?

Avi Burstein

Rebtn Simi Peters wrote:
> I agree absolutely that the problem of differentiating peshat from 
> derash is *very* far from simple.   In my book, I shy away from the 
> use of those terms altogether, preferring to talk about whether a 
> midrash is engaged in parshanut or darshanut (I explain why when I 
> discuss these terms in my introduction).  Whether or not one agrees 
> that Rashi is primarily presenting peshat, I think no one would 
> dispute that he is engaged in parshanut.  (Actually, Prof Yona 
> Fraenkel might, but he has somewhat unusual views about Rashi--Nehama 
> Leibowitz was choleket on him very vociferously.)  Perhaps the reason 
> that I dare to talk about peshat and derash at all is because 
> I generally teach non-halachic portions of the Torah, and usually 
> teach Nach, in fact.  I think that the case of halacha is different--I 
> am inclined to see halachic derivations from pesukim as asmachta, not 
> as derived from the parshanut of the pesukim.  (Not that I am in any 
> way an expert in these matters.  Aderaba.  It just seems simpler to 
> say and easier to defend.  I also suspect that that is the reason 
> midrash halacha as the primary form of deriving halacha dies out 
> fairly early and the Mishna--and subsequently the Talmud--takes over.  
> It is hard to see how one could derive all halachot from the pesukim 
> of the Torah no matter how thoroughly one reads them.)

My basic concern is with your approach - one that seems reflected in
the introduction to your book. It is to understand the material as best
you can by utilizing a variety of tools and concepts(without regard to
where they come from) in order to give the best and clearest exposition
of the text and the ideas you view emanating from them. This is the
approach of the Netziv etc. but as you are well aware - there is an
alternative approach. That is to start with authoritative interpretations
and attempt to understand how they viewed the text. In general the avoda
list typically focuses on the latter approach while the former approach
is more characteristic of the areivim list. My present interest is in
views that I can quote because I am interested in a deeper understanding
of the system as it - something that Harris does very well. Thus while
your comments are well informed, brilliant and interesting - they carry
absolutely no weight in the yeshiva - chareidi world. Thus what I would
ideally like is for you to broaden the context of your comments by citing
and integrating traditional sources as well. In sum, I appreciate your
knowledge and creativity but I need it packaged in a way that is useable
within the system.

Daniel Eidensohn

Zev Sero wrote:
>simchag@att.net wrote:

>>Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

>>>I don't believe there is a halacha to discourage giyur or even not
>>>to push it.

Rambam(Tshuva #149): Question: According to Sanhedrin (59a), a non Jew
who studies Torah is deserving of death. Is this actually the halacha
and therefore it is a prohibition to teach Torah except concerning the
Seven Mitzvos? Answer: There is no question that this prohibition is
actual halacha. If Jews are in positions of authority then they should
withhold Torah instructions to non Jews unless they want to convert.
However there is no death penalty administered by man if a non Jew
does study Torah. That can be seen from the statement "he is deserving
of death". If he was actually subject to the death penalty the gemora
would have said that he should be killed... It is in fact permitted
to teach the commandments to Christians and to attract them to our
religion - but not Moslems. That is because the Moslems don't view the
Torah as being Divinely given. Therefore when they learn Torah they will
not accept anything which is against their religious training. In fact
they will reinterpret the Torah in such a way to reinforce their Moslem
viewpoint and thus cause a problem for ignorant Jews and converts -
who are forced to live in exile amongst the Moslems. In contrast the
Christians believe that the text of the Torah has not been altered
since it was Divinely given on Sinai. Their problem is that they have
developed a false understanding of the verses. However they are able
to accept the truthful understanding of the Torah if it is carefully
explained to them and they might convert. Even if they don't convert
immediately they might do so later. So we see with the Christians no
harm comes from teaching them Torah as opposed to the Moslems.

Daniel Eidensohn

From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> and he entirely glossed over the word "vataan" which does *not* have to
> mean "she chanted".

> As R' Gil Student wrote, <<< I don't even understand the question. Where
> in the Torah does it say that Miriam sang?>>>

I thank RGS for pointing out that Miriam might never have actually sung.
If I understand him correctly, "vataan" (vav, tav, ayin, nun) would mean
that she answered or responded to the men. This does not necessarily
mean that she sang at all.

1) Targum Tonoson: "Vezomras lehon Miriam".
2) Rashi 15:21: "Moshe omar shirah l'anoshim...
            uMiriam omro shirah lenoshim..."

SBA

From: Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org>
> SBA wrote:
>> Here in Melbourne I have noticed that the direction of davvening depends
>> which Shul you are in. Thus one has a choice of davvening in 4
>> directions(!).
> This is fairly common although most European shuls do face either East or
> South or something in between. In reality, the first consideration is the
> layout of the plot on which the shul was built, so that when entering,
> one would enter from the back of the shul.

Is that consideration halachically more important than davvening
towards EY?

I was told that in Bet-E-l in Borough Park, both the main shul and the
'heder sheni face West. Since the pulpit of the auxilary synagogue was
movable, baalei tfillah would often, for weekday services, fight it out
against other mitpallelim as to whether the 'amud should be moved

Recently a number of our shul's members have made chupos using facilities
of a shul that davvens eastwards [as opposoed to our westward].

We usually davven mincha before or after a chuppah - in the 'auxiliary'
shul. We only realised later that we were davvening with our backs
to the oron hakodesh... [There probably was no sefer Torah there -
for security reasons.]

SBA

I was thinking about Yisro and his advice "VeAtoh Sechzeh" - to MR .

How come MR - or even Aharon or any of the other leaders of Am Yisroel -
didn't think of this idea?

And where did Yisro himself, get the idea from?

Venireh li [I wouldn't be surprised if some has already written this],
Klall Yisroel were coming out of 400 years of slavery and misery -
and hardly had any organisied communal or religious set up.

So, after receiving the Torah and Mitzvos - all they knew was that MR had
been spoken to by Hashem and he was the only one who knew all the answers
and it was to him that one must bring all their doubts and queries.

Yisro, however, came from Midyon a 'normal' and organised country with
an established religion/church/AZ - of which he had been the head [Cohen
Midyon - see Targum Yonoson] who knew all about delegating authority and
appointing religious functionaries - at various levels and power. [As
lemoshol the catholic church with its pope/cardinals/archbishops/bishops
and further down the drain...]

Being experienced in this field - it was indeed Yisro, who could advise
MR on how to establish a 'chain of command' and infrastructure for psak
halocho and dinei Torah etc.

 ----

Another interesting note.
The Targum Yonoson on Vehizharto es'hem es hachukim vegomer.. [18:20]
translates the posukas Yisro advising MR to inform them of the 'tefilos
that they should davven in shul [!]', how to be mevaker cholim, to be
kover meisim and be gomel chesed,...and they should do lifnim mishuras
hadin for reshoim...

SBA

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


[ 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         ]