Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 005

Saturday, April 17 2004

• Re: davening in plane
• Tefillin Chol Hamoed
• Re: cooking in chametz pots and kitchen for Pesach
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• Who is a Posek
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• Re: cooking in chametz pots and kitchen for Pesach
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• Hassidim wearing tefillin on chol haMoed - additional information
• Re: Dateline
• 2/7
• Re: Dateline
• Re: davening in plane
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• Re: cooking in chametz pots and kitchen for Pesach
• Re: cos shel eliyahu
• Re: Monogamy
• Re: Monogamy

In a message dated 4/16/2004 10:03:56 AM EDT, turkel@post.tau.ac.il writes:
> saw notice that R. Wosner paskened that one cannot daven in a group in
> a plane when it is dangerous or interferes with the crew. Recommends
> either small groups or davening in one's seat

meaning no tfilla btibbur I assume. Interesting shikul hadaas - how much 
"interfering" outweighs benefit of tfilla btibbur and hatzibbur?

KT
Joel Rich

Is the reason Bobov has a sign for different minyanim is so that
bochurim can put on tefillin or is it that l'chatchila one shouldn't
have tefillin-wearers and non-tefillin wearers davenning together in
the same minyan (without a mechitza or something similar).

R Meir Rabi wrote on Mar 25th:
> It appears from M"B 447 S"K 14, that one may cook and bake in unkashered
> chometz kitchen before Pesach, the food one will eat on Pesach. Is this
> true?

R. Micha Berger wrote:
> I'm still perplexed about this one. Anyone?

Without checking, I would guess the rationale is that before Pesach, it
is Nat bar Nat d'heteirah so the cooked food is not deemed chametz. But
I agree investigation is warrated.

Shalom L. Kohn 
Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood 
skohn@sidley.com 

Micha wrote:
>All of the debate over L messianists takes the definitiveness
>of the ikkarim as a given. The question is not whether one
>can violate the 12th ikkar and still be in the fold, but whether
>belief in a dead messiah is sufficient to be considered denying
>the ikkar... But no one questioned the ground rules -- the
>12th ikkar does play a role in the definition kefirah.

For online sources from prominent rabbinic authorities on this issue,
see the following letters from R' Aharon Feldman and R' Yehuda Henkin
on this subject. Both rabbis are clear that "violation" (really, denial)
of the 12th principle would have significant halachic consequences.

<http://moshiachtalk.tripod.com/henkin.pdf>
<http://moshiachtalk.tripod.com/feldman.pdf>

[Email #2. -mi]

I should add that R' Aharon Feldman clearly paskens against the
Radbaz that Dr. Shinnar keeps quoting, and instead sides with R' Chaim
Soloveitchik and R' Moshe Feinstein.

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

WRT to RMB's question:

1) Many poskim today hold today that we are tinokot shenishbu -
and therefore we can drink the wine of most Jews, even if they hold
krum beliefs - questions of active rejection is different. Therefore,
the relevance of the ikkarim to halachic issues is problematic at best.
Gerut is a different issue - where different criteria may apply - but even
there, while a bet din might ask about subscribing to the 13 ikkarim,
like subscribing to the shulchan aruch, there are few that go through
each ikar.

2) Many poskim use the "13 ikkarim" as shorthand - like saying we follow
the shulchan aruch - rather than describing a commitment to a specific
known version.

3) To give one example of dissonance and specific disagreement from
the "universal agreement" among poskim that you claim: Rav Goren (in
the machanayim article previously cited) has specifically said popular
concept of 13 ikkarim was not given halachic force even by the rambam,
not to mention later authorities. He also says that the entire ikkar of
schar veonesh is not mentioned as a required belief in the mishne torah,
even though the concept clearly exists there - and therefore that ikkar
was not given halachic force even by the rambam.

4) WRT to mashiach - it actually proves the opposite of your point:

The rambam has, in the perush hamishnayot, very specific description
of the nature of the belief of mashiach - including specific lineage
(being of bet david is not enough).

The issue of a mashiach from the dead is a different issue, and is
not specifically addressed by the rambam in the perush hamishnayot.
However, the lineage issue is - and in the entire debate over habad,
almost no one raised that objection to a levy being the mashiach (and
his claim to bet david not being the right lineage). This suggests that
no one took the ikkarim as serious halachic fodder

The notion of mashiach is well accepted, and the debates with Christianity
have sharpened the focus of that notion and its centrality - but
this seems far more based on the gmara than the rambam's ikkarim.
RD Berger's argument that meshichistim should be considered as kofrim
can't be based on the rambam's ikarim - as this particular point was
never made by the rambam.

RMB
>Um, this has nothing to do with the Chasam Sofer's position.
RMB
>RMS does NOT DISCUSS the topic. He assumes the issue is one of dogma,
>and therefore outside the realm of pesaq and of the rules for making
>formerly valid options unviable.

I am truly puzzled by these two positions. The second statement - that
the notion that the rules of pesak which make formerly valid positions
unviable apply to the halachic consequences of dogma - and that is
precisely the hatam sofer's position, and I don't think that that is
universally accepted.

RM Shapiro documents that rishonim and acharonim deviated from the
thirteen ikkarim - deviations both small and large.

If one still wants to argue that the ikkarim are normative and
halachically binding - you have the following options in a halachic mode:

1) Find some version of the ikkarim that would fit all known sources -
and no one has done that. (RS Mandel, cited in your post, has argued
that the rambam has endorsed in a tshuva the ikkarim as outlined in
the perush hamishnayot, and that this definition has been accepted for
hundreds of years. In previous go rounds, that definition has been
seen to be problematic - eg, are those who say all of shalom alechem
(barchuni leshalom) epikorsim? in addition to the eighth ikkar problem
we were discussing)

2) Decide (I don't know on the basis of what criteria) that some version
of ikkarim (I would be interested in the one you choose) is halachically
binding as defining what is kfira with its halachic consequences -
and therefore write everyone who disagreed with that version out.
This requires a belief either

A) They were always binding - and therefore those who disagreed should
not be considered part of the mesora (eg, RYGB took that option with
regard to r Taku of Regensburg - and held that he wouldn't drink his
wine). Many here and elsewhere find such a position highly problematic -
to hold that one of the ba'ale hatosfot was a kopher - and what RMS has
shown that if one understands the pshat of the 13 ikkarim as the rambam
explains them in the perush hamishnayot, we would be writing many people
out of the mesora.

B) They weren't always binding, but, like the hatam sofer position on rav
hillel, the "halachic consensus" has rejected them, so it is now kfira -
without holding rav hillel to be a kofer. this seems RGS's position, and
he claims that R Bleich holds this way too. Again, the issue of a halachic
consensus is something that needs to be demonstrated - not claimed - and
I doubt that you can find me a version of the 13 ikkarim around which
there exists such a consensus. (With rav hillel, at least the gmara
explicitly rejected his position -even though it did not label it kfira)

Therefore, unless you hold position A, the hatam sofer is very relevant -
because otherwise, our current psak about who is a kofer has halachic
implications (even if we don't draw them explicitly) about earlier
generations - which few are truly willing to make. Even with position B,
the issue of being motzi la'az al harishonim is a real issue - which
is why there isn't a halachic consensus or agreement with the hatam
sofer's position.

Lastly, I find the last part of your post (WADR) incomphrehensible.
If respected members of the chain of mesora held certain opinions,
then their opinions become part of the chain of mesora - and therefore
the definition of Orthodoxy has to include them within it, or recognize
that one is writing out parts of it. How one defines Orthodoxy so that it
includes all of them may not be up to RM Shapiro, because that requires
a positive act of definition that needs to be done by the community,
but any definition that doesn't fit the data that he provides is ipso
facto inaccurate.

Meri Shinnar

Mv"r R' Mayer Twersky on issues of pesak halachah, from this week's
TorahWeb (http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2004/parsha/rtwe_shmini.html):

"Certain questions, due either to the gravity of the issurim involved
or their implications for Klal Yisroel or both, are reserved for gedolei
Yisroel. Outstanding though they are, even talmidim she' higi'u l'hora'a
refer such questions to the gedolim...

"I believe - and I write without pretensions or delusions, as a talmid
shelo higia l'hora'a - that we urgently need to engage in introspection
regarding these matters of psak halacha. Too often we do not defer
and refer to the appropriate halachic authorities. Case in point:
the recent renewed interest and debate concerning interfaith relations
and dialogue..."

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 11:55:48AM -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
: 1) Many poskim today hold today that we are tinokot shenishbu -
: and therefore we can drink the wine of most Jews, even if they hold
: krum beliefs - questions of active rejection is different...

That's why I liked geirus as an example. I also suggested the messianist
as another.

: 2) Many poskim use the "13 ikkarim" as shorthand - like saying we follow
: the shulchan aruch - rather than describing a commitment to a specific
: known version.

Proof? Whenever one says "they don't mean what they say" one is opening
up the door to a wide door of reinterpretation. (Look at scholars and
the Rambam, claiming this peice or that -- whatever doesn't fit their
theory -- was written to either satisfy the thought police or to satisfy
the perplexed even though he doesn't believe it himself.

Clearly, when RYHH writes about "achakeh lo bekhol yom sheyavo" he is
referring to a version of the literal ikkar. In RGS's other URL, RAFeldman
refers to the ikkarim and their codification in Hil Teshuvah. (Obviously
he holds they are codified there.)

: 3) To give one example of dissonance and specific disagreement from
: the "universal agreement" among poskim that you claim: Rav Goren (in
: the machanayim article previously cited) has specifically said popular
: concept of 13 ikkarim was not given halachic force even by the rambam,
: not to mention later authorities...

And yet his rabbanut had a policy (which still stands) requiring
professing belief in them in its batei din leyiur.

: 4) WRT to mashiach - it actually proves the opposite of your point:

: The rambam has, in the perush hamishnayot, very specific description
: of the nature of the belief of mashiach - including specific lineage
: (being of bet david is not enough).

Not relevent, as we've alreadydistance current pesaq from the Rambam's
original formulation.

But in any case, I don't see how your reply addresses my point. The best
you can do is re-invoke #2 about everyone arguing the issue who does
phrase their answer as being about the ikkarim.

...
: RD Berger's argument that meshichistim should be considered as kofrim
: can't be based on the rambam's ikarim - as this particular point was
: never made by the rambam.

This would certainly surprise RDDB. When I spoke to him in 

...
: RM Shapiro documents that rishonim and acharonim deviated from the
: thirteen ikkarim - deviations both small and large.

Not in dispute -- and well known even without the full detail provided
in the documentation.

: If one still wants to argue that the ikkarim are normative and
: halachically binding - you have the following options in a halachic mode:

: 2) Decide (I don't know on the basis of what criteria) that some version
: of ikkarim (I would be interested in the one you choose) is halachically
: binding as defining what is kfira with its halachic consequences -
: and therefore write everyone who disagreed with that version out.

: B) They weren't always binding, but, like the hatam sofer position on rav
: hillel, the "halachic consensus" has rejected them, so it is now kfira -
: without holding rav hillel to be a kofer...

I edited things down to my position.

One doesn't need the Chasam Sofer to speak about which beliefs we require
for categorizing people WRT to certain dinim. His chiddush allows us to
do so without passing judgement on historical figures, but the straight
halachic process requires that we have some pesaq when dealing with
our contemporaries.

As for your interest in which one version of the ikkarim I choose as
binding... As with most things, when one gets into too much detail,
one finds machloqesim abound.

: he claims that R Bleich holds this way too. Again, the issue of a halachic
: consensus is something that needs to be demonstrated - not claimed...

It has been demonstrated. You're dismissing the demonstration on an
unsubstantiated claim that poseqim who refer to the ikkarim in their
teshuvos don't mean it. But that's different than denying consensus
where it does exist.

: Lastly, I find the last part of your post (WADR) incomphrehensible.
: If respected members of the chain of mesora held certain opinions,
: then their opinions become part of the chain of mesora - and therefore
: the definition of Orthodoxy has to include them within it, or recognize
: that one is writing out parts of it. How one defines Orthodoxy so that it
: includes all of them may not be up to RM Shapiro, because that requires
: a positive act of definition that needs to be done by the community,
: but any definition that doesn't fit the data that he provides is ipso
: facto inaccurate.

This is a sociological point: Regardless of whether the beliefs of
the group are accurate, they define the group. Pointing out what you
believe to be inaccuracies doesn't change the definition.

Also, your last sentence seems to contradict: itself  If O need not include
all of the opinions in mesorah, than how does any of RMShapiro's book
force a redefinition? All he is saying, as I wrote last time, is that he
believes there are non-O valid forms of yahadus.

But this issue of communal definition is off-topic for avodah.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 10th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict
Fax: (413) 403-9905                  judgment bring balance and harmony?

On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 11:35:59AM -0500, Kohn, Shalom wrote:
: R Meir Rabi wrote on Mar 25th:
: > It appears from M"B 447 S"K 14, that one may cook and bake in unkashered
: > chometz kitchen before Pesach, the food one will eat on Pesach. Is this
: > true?

: R. Micha Berger wrote:
: > I'm still perplexed about this one. Anyone?

: Without checking, I would guess the rationale is that before Pesach, it
: is Nat bar Nat d'heteirah so the cooked food is not deemed chametz....

My surprise is not with the rationale. That made sense. Too much sense
for something that would shock me to witness.

:-)BBii!
-mi

I have been purposefully staying out of this debate as I had expressed
myself sufficiently on these points last year. I do want to point out
that Rambam in Pirush Hamishnayos seguies form the declaration that the
Torah was given to Moshe Rabbeinu into the point that the details of the
mitsvos that we have now are the same as those of Moshe Rabbeinu. This is
a significant correlation; I think that the Rambam would not comprehend
or value the discussion about the masorah of the original text. Remember,
he believes in truth as identically revealed by reason and revalation
and to him the issue of exactness of text is from another universe of
discourse. It simply does not relate to teh fundamentals. The important
thing is that the mitsvos are from Sinai.

Having said that, we remain with the issue because to us, coming from a
background and awareness of history of kefira relating to Bible text,
that is an issue. We jsut ahve to argue it form different perspective
than the Rambam.

M. Levin

I discussed the inyan with some more people and got the following
additional information (collected and woven together here from various
sources by myself).

The Divrei Chaim (R. Chaim Halberstam of Sanz) told his talmidim that
were 'bochurim' (unmarried) to put on tefillin on chol haMoed and the
bochurim that did so davened in his beis medrash * together * with others
(e.g. older married men) who did not.

The sons and grandsons of the Divrei Chaim followed him in this custom,
with the exception of his son R. Yechezkel Shraga of Shiniva (who is known
to have differed with his father in other inyonim as well - anyone care to
give examples ?) (and his descendants presumably), who told his bochurim
to do as the married men did and not wear them then. (Surprisingly ? -
or perhaps not surprisingly if one knows them ?,) His father, the Divrei
Chaim made peace with this hanhogo of his (can anyone elaborate ?), and
not only that, but his son (of R. Y.S., grandson of the Divrei Chaim)
R. Sholom of Stropkov, who had already reached bar mitzvah age and was
staying in Sanz over Sukkos, was told by his zeide the Divrei Chaim to do
according to his father's opinion and not put them on then. Mipi hashmua
(orally) it is related that the Satmar Rebbe (baal 'Divrei Yoel') (who
had a connection to Sanz via his father who was a talmid of the Divrei
Chaim, IIRC) told talmidim bnei chutz lo'oretz (even) in Eretz Yisroel
(EY) to put on tefillin betzinoh (privately), as well as bnei chutz
lo'oretz in chutz la'aretz, but it seems that it was given as somewhat
private advice rather than as public pronouncements. The minhag of the
Divrei Chaim is mentioned by R. C.E. Shapiro in his sefer 'Os Chaim',
although without attribution, and he states that he doesn't know the
heter to do so in light of 'lo sisgodedu', specifically since Hassidim
follow the Zohar in not wearing them. This tradition attributes to him
the following explanation. True, Hassidic custom is not to wear them,
however, with regard to a bochur before marriage, 'Chassidus' does not
come into the picture, just as such bochurim do not wear tefillin of
Rabbeinu Tam (brought by R. Yosef Weisberg in sefer 'Otzar Hachaim',
p. 326, and citing sefer 'Mikroei Kodesh' of R. Yechiel Michel Gold,
who wrote at length in explaining the various opinions about it) (as
an aside, I was told that some Hassidim [e.g. Nadvorna for one ?] do
have their bochurim put on tefillin of Rabbeinu Tam before marriage -
but I assume that that may be - perhaps by far - a minority custom).

In the Bobover court, a compromise of sorts was instituted in which
the bochurim wear tefillin then until they reach eighteen years of
age. This custom of those who carry on the traditions of the Divrei
Chaim has been known even among those who didn't wear tefillin then,
and therefore, for example, when one 'Sanzer einikel' was in Belz over
yom tov, R. Aharon of Belz instructed him to don tefillin 'betzinoh'
at his achsanya, where he was staying.

Mordechai

eli turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il> wrote:
> while on the topic of australia for the locals there what do they
> do do about the arguments over the halachic date line.
> why do many avoid Japan and Hawaii for shabbat but not Australia
> and New Zealand.

The opinions that have the dateline running through the Australian
mainland are very much yechidim, and I've never heard of anyone who
worries about them lemaaseh. Even the Chazon Ish, the main proponent of
the '90 degrees' shitah, says that the mainland follows Eretz Yisrael,
and the dateline goes around the coast; I've heard that there are some
who don't go boating on Sundays (and al achat kamah vekamah trips to
offshore islands or to Tasmania) to be choshesh for his shitah, but I
don't know anyone personally who does that.

As for New Zealand, it seems to me that it's much more of a safek.
Certainly anyone who avoids Japan (daat yachid of the Chazon Ish) and
Hawaii (daat yachid of R Tukachinsky) must be even more careful to avoid
New Zealand. One of the shitot that apparently swayed the Jerusalem
conference (in 1941?) was that of the Bnai Tzion, who actually puts much
of the North Island of New Zealand in an official state of unresolvable
safek, like bein hashmashot.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Joel Rich wrote:
>I'm trying to research the frequency of 2 out of 7 (eg checking mezuzah,
>fixing homes in sharon, telling over names of families with psul).
>Any guesses as to why 2/7 rather than every 3?

WRT mezuzot, the answer is simple; the gemara says (Yoma 11a) "Private
mezuzot should be examined twice in each shmittah; public ones twice in
each yovel."
Thus, as the questioner surmised, the "7" referred to in 2/7 is indeed
shmittah. This din is stated in YD 291.

Saul Mashbaum 

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Zev Sero wrote:
> The opinions that have the dateline running through the Australian
> mainland are very much yechidim, and I've never heard of anyone who
> worries about them lemaaseh.Even the Chazon Ish, the main proponent
> of the '90 degrees' shitah, says that themainland follows Eretz Yisrael,
> and the dateline goes around the coast; I've heard that there are some
> who don't go boating on Sundays (and al achat kamah vekamah trips to
> offshore islands or to Tasmania) to be choshesh for his shitah,

I uderstood that the shittah of the Brisker Rav was that the 90 degrees
are exact and that in theory one could have a house in two different
time zones.
Even for the CI shittah that it goes to the coast this makes sense for
Asia that follows the time zone of EY. However for Australia why should
it follow one more than the other?

Physically is most of Australia beyond or within 90 degrees of EY?

BTW does New Zealand have a charedi community?

Thanks,
Eli Turkel

> saw notice that R. Wosner paskened that one cannot daven in a group
> in a plane when it is dangerous or interferes with the crew.
> Recommends either small groups or davening in one's seat...

Details of this was in the weekends Jerusalem Post:
<http://tinyurl.com/22x2j>. Do people here think that this means the end
of this issue, or are people going to choose to be 'machmir' and still
continue them, 'relying' on other poskim who haven't concurred with him?

Avi Burstein

PS - I posted this both to Areivim (for discussion of the general
sociological aspect) and Avodah (for more details about the halachic
issue). Any further discussion should be directed towards each appropriate
list.

Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>3) Given the popular understanding, and the reluctance to challenge
>that understanding, prof Shapiro did a real service by documenting that
>the popular understanding (which is held by some rashe yeshivot, and is
>part of many popular hashkafa books) is quite problematic and wrong -
>and therefore the outlines of normative Orthodox thought are substantially
>broader than believed. That is not dependent on Kellner and Jacobs, but on
>the more mainstream sources cited - but Kellner and Jacobs have already
>pointed out some of this issues, and their summaries can therefore be
>cited (even with the problems with Jacobs - kabel ha'emet from everyone)

>4) You seem to think that because you think Prof Shapiro should have
>written a deeper analysis of the nature of Jewish doctrine, and that
>he uses an academic methodology and cites (although not necessarily for
>his conclusions) sources you dislike, the entire book can therefore be
>ignored - and while one can always hope for more, I don't understand
>why you can't accept what is actually there.

At this point we are recycling.  I'll try one more time.

I think Prof Shapiro would have done better if he had adhered to an
earlier self description. He had written in Torah U-Maddah concerning his
original article: "In conclusion, let me emphasize that it has never been
my intention to offer a comprehensive definition of what is and what is
not heresy, or what individuals should believe. I have merely attempted to
show that a definition of heresy, and the concomitant banning of books,
based solely upon Maimonides' definition, is completely without basis
and has no precedent in our history. What is truly astounding is that
this fact is not yet perfectly clear to all."

There is a major difference between the above statement of purpose and
what is found in his book. I have raised serious questions about the book
as scholarship. There are also problems that result from an uncritical
reading of the book which might lead one to mistakenly assume that he has
demonstrated that Orthodoxy doesn't really have critical beliefs and that
the differences between Orthodoxy and Conservative and Reform might not
be significant. The issue of belief - even under normal conditions - is
something which the average person has a poor understanding. The language
and manner of presentation of this book - aside from the scholarship -
is not designed to enlighten these people.
Nor is it likely to educate the roshei yeshiva - see the original
discussion in Torah U-Maddah Journal. It is possible that because he has
not approached the subject in a more cautious and respectful manner - he
has generated a defensive reaction that will militate against meaningful
public discussion on the subject in the future. Therefore I am concerned
not only that Prof Shapiro - with his brilliance and genuine scholarship -
lost an opportunity to genuinely enlighten us. Iam also concerned with
damage and confusion caused to the uncritical reader and also because
of barriers raised because of what he did write.

Daniel Eidensohn

[Micha:]
> R Meir Rabi wrote on Mar 25th:
>> It appears from M"B 447 S"K 14, that one may cook and bake in unkashered
>> chometz kitchen before Pesach, the food one will eat on Pesach. Is this
>> true?

> I'm still perplexed about this one. Anyone?

Surely this is because chametz is batel before pesach. If I recall
there is machloket over whether one may intentionally cause bitul of
chametz before Pesach, and certainly many poskim rule that one can.
Yalkut Yosef brings the question as a machloket and seems to imply one
should be machmir not to, although he allows adding liquid to cause bitul
in the case of a ta'arovet lach b'lach. Certainly b'di'avad there's no
problem with using a clean chametz kitchen. Certainly if it's ben yomo
there's even more tzad heter. However most ashkenazi poskim are machmir
on the question of 'chazar v'ne'or'

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

The cos chamishi is mentioned in the Rambam - he says one should do the
chatima of hallel at the usual place and drink the fourth cup, and then
pour the fifth and continue with hallel hagadol over the fifth cup -
without mention that it is specifically drunk, in fact R. Avraham ben
HaRambam says his father didn't drink more than four cups. In fact some
Baladi Yemanites and the Jews of Jadra in Tunisia had five cups (I'm
not sure if they drank them) following this minhag. Now the rest of
Jewry that does the chatima for hallel after hallel hagadol and drinks
the fourth cup then, how can they fulfill this minhag? I know that
some edot hamizrach communities read shir hashirim on the fifth cup,
although this is based on a mistaken inference from a piyut, which is
not halachah anyway. Ashkenazim pour it after the Hallel if I'm not
mistaken, and make Kiddush Raba on it in the morning. However the Rama
writes that the custom is to recite Hallah HaGadol over the cup. This
raises three questions. One, how is one yotze da'at haRama without
Hallel HaGadol? Two how can one drink from the cup and tell the children
in the morning that Eliyahu has come and drunk from it, this makes
the cos pagum, (I guess you can add a bit more wine from the bottle,
but then it's not really the 'cos shel eliyahu' any more). And thirdly
aren't many acharonim choshesh of leaving the cup uncovered overnight?
Chabad chassidim solve the first two, by their custom of pouring the
'cos shel eliyahu' back into the bottle at the end of the seder, but it
still leaves the first question. Also is it true that all ashkenazim
have the cos shel eliyahu, and that all ashkenazim pour it after hallel.
Have some ashkenazim had the minhag of pouring it at the beginning of
the seder?

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

In Areivim Digest V13 #15 dated 4/16/04  Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> <<  do something about Rabbeinu Gershom >>
> ...notice the juxtaposition of this post to one discussing 
> having more Jewish children and one about chukat hagoyim.  What were the 
> reasons for instituting monogamy...? 

Are you suggesting that monogamy is chukas hagoyim?

  Omer Day 10
 -Toby Katz

> Are you suggesting that monogamy is chukas hagoyim?

I recall that in the past when this has been discussed, we said something
to that effect. That Rabbeinu Gershom felt that it 'looked bad' for
the Jews when non-Jews have set a standard of only one wife, while Jews
were allowing for multiple ones. He didn't want it to appear that that
non-Jews were being more moral than Jews were. It may not exactly be
chukos hagoyim, but it does seem to be taking a goyish practice and
instituting it for Jews.

Avi Burstein

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


[ 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         ]