Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 006

Sunday, April 18 2004

• Re: circuses
• Circuses
• Circuses
• Re:Ringling Bros.and Barnum & Bailey circus goes kosher for a day
• RE: definition of moshav leitzim-circuses
• Re: Monogamy
• RE: definition of moshav leitzim-circuses
• Re: Circuses... NOT your father's Oldsmobile
• RE: definition of moshav leitzim-circuses
• Re: circus
• RE: definition of moshav leitzim-circuses
• RE: definition of moshav leitzim-circuses
• Re: Circuses... NOT your father's Oldsmobile
• RE: definition of moshav leitzim-circuses
• RE: definition of moshav leitzim-circuses
• Re: definition of moshav leitzim-circuses
• Re: circuses
• Re: circuses
• Re: Monogamy
• Re: 2/7
• Re: Circuses
• Re: Circuses... NOT your father's Oldsmobile
• Re:Torah portion
• objection to a levy being the mashiach?
• Re: davening in plane
• re: who is a posek
• Re: cos shel eliyahu
• cooking in chametz pots and kitchen for Pesach

The Talmudic condemnation of circuses doubtless refers to the Roman
spectacle (think gladiators etc.) where licentiousness and crassness
were prevalent. Modern circuses have their share of scantily-clad
women which might prompt some to impose an issur, but as child-oriented
entertainment, they present quite a different gestalt.

On the other hand, to the extent the "prohibition" is based on chukot
ha-goyim or "you should be learning torah instead," there is a broader
philosophical issue afoot which probably is better left undiscussed.

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

My matzo-clogged brain is not functioning properly, as I saw a reference
to circuses SHEL YISRAEL recently but cannot recall where.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> The Talmudic condemnation of circuses doubtless refers to the Roman
> spectacle (think gladiators etc.) where licentiousness and crassness 
> were prevalent.  Modern circuses have their share of scantily-clad women 
> which might prompt some to impose an issur, but as child-oriented 
> entertainment, they present quite a different gestalt. 

> On the other hand, to the extent the "prohibition" is based on 
> chukot ha-goyim or "you should be learning torah instead," there is a 
> broader philosophical issue afoot which probably is better left
> undiscussed. 

I believe chukot hagoyim is an issue of issur v'heter, not just
philisophical.

More paticularly I believe that the technical issue is 'moshav l'eitzim',
participating in a session of scorners, which is a halachic issue.

I do not think your assumption that what Chazal found offensive about the
circus was gladiatiors...which I think is a completely different species
of 'entertainment'...is unjustified. The Mishnah Berurah (307:59), citing
Avodah Zarah 18b ossured circuses saying they where deffinantly "moshav
l'eitzim" despite the obvious lack of gladiatiors even a century ago.
Furthermore he grouped them with theaters and defined them, simply,
as places of amusement.

The extent to which this halachah applies may be debatable and their may
be poskim who would disagree, but I think one would be hard pressed to
say that the MB would matir going to the circus...and I don't think the
'kosher' circus address MB (or the Gemara's) essential concerns with
these events.

[The following posts are another long Areivim thread that should have
been here. -mi]

<OTOH isn't there a Chazal somewhere that forbids circuses?>

Medrash Rus Rabba on the posuk ba'asher teilchi eileich: "Ein darkan
shel b'nos Yisraeil laleches l'vatei tiatra'ot ul'vatei kirkasa'ot shel
ovdei kochavim." Note that (1) it's not stated as an issur, but as ein
derech; in other words, es past nit; (2) it's only shel ovdei kochavim.
If kosher theater is permitted, so should kosher circuses. The issuing of
an issur is reminiscent of the prohibition, discussed a few months ago,
of yehiva bochurim not playing ball. Apparently, any source of enjoyment
outside of Torah is to be prohibited.

EMT

> I think the definition is in the mishna, shelosha sheyashvu
> ve'ein benehem divrei Torah.
> Do you have an alternative source?

If you're going to take that absolutely literally and apply it to every
case where people get together then almost every business meeting,
car ride, ball game (not just professional, recreational too), family
meal (not just shabbos), and so many other scenarios fall under that
category. Is that what you're trying to say, that the mishna considers
all these settings to be moshav leitzim?

Avi Burstein

[The first of 2 Areivim threads that belonged here. -mi]

In a message dated 04/16/2004 1:26:46 AM EDT, T613K@aol.com writes:
<< We'll have to do something about Rabbeinu Gershom, but that shouldn't
be too big a problem. We'll get the big guns at Drisha to work on it,
they'll have it solved by tomorrow.

Icouldn't help but 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 and how did monogamy come to the
nonJewish world and when?

KT
Joel Rich

> I don't see the comparison, BTW, between a business meeting 
> <snip> with a ball game.

They aren't comparable except for the fact that in most of those sorts
of scenarios there are 3 people sitting together and there isn't Torah
spoken among them, which according to that mishna you quoted is the
definition of a moshav leitzim.

> If you consider a professional ball game a need for you to be able to
> continue your avodah refreshed, then an argument can be made to include
> it as well.
> I also don't see why a family meal must be a moshav leitzim;  I
> don't consider my family's meals that way.  Shabbos or weekday.

The mishna says the criteria is what actually happens at the gathering
(there should be torah), not what the goal or purpose of the gathering
is. Even if it is for legitimate purposes such as parnoso, necessary
breaks, quality family time, etc.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to set any narrow and rigid
boundaries here. I think those are very kosher purposes for a gathering.
But if you want to follow the definition of the mishna, it doesn't
seem to me to be good enough. All these scenarios, which are considered
acceptable to us would be deemed a moshav leitzim according to the mishna,
AIUI. It follows therefore that the mishna's characterization can't be
the accepted definition.

> ... you (and R' Harry) have not demonstrated that it is NOT to be
> taken literally, as least as an ideal.

I think the above does demonstrates that.

Maybe we all need to redefine the concept of 'Torah being among them'.
I've always maintained that defining Torah as 'learning torah' is too
restrictive. Maybe here it means 'living Torah' - that they're actions
and gatherings are an integral part of their torah lifestyle.

Oh wait, I just looked back and notice that the mishna says 'divrei
torah'. I guess that pshat won't work.

Avi Burstein

On 15 Apr 2004 at 3:35, Harry Maryles wrote:
> Chukas HaGoy only applies to
> such behavior or dress that would lead one to AZ. 

AFAIK, chukos ha'goy would apply to any behavior that is adopted in 
an effort to imitate goyishe practice. 

 - Carl

On 15 Apr 2004 at 17:58, Avi Burstein wrote:
> They aren't comparable except for the fact that in most of those sorts
> of scenarios there are 3 people sitting together and there isn't Torah
> spoken among them, which according to that mishna you quoted is the
> definition of a moshav leitzim.
[snip]
> Oh wait, I just looked back and notice that the mishna says 'divrei
> torah'. I guess that pshat won't work.

Look back again. The mishna says Shlosha SHE'ACHLU B'SHULCHAN ECHAD.

It's talking specifically about eating at a table, probably because
today's table is compared to the Mizbeach.

OTOH, the Gemara leaves little doubt about what "v'Hagisa bo yomam
va'layla" means. As an ideal, at least, I think there's no doubt it is
meant to be taken literally.

 - Carl

R' Yirmeyahu Allen wrote:
<<< ... More paticularly I believe that the technical issue is 'moshav
leitzim'... The Mishnah Berurah (307:59), citing Avodah Zarah 18b ossured
circuses saying they where definitely "moshav leitzim" despite the obvious
lack of gladiatiors even a century ago. Furthermore he grouped them with
theaters and defined them, simply, as places of amusement...>>>

I must admit, my reading of the MB is the same as RYA's presentation. Does
anyone know of any rebuttal arguments, who might have a more lenient
definition of "moshav leitzim", or a more lenient attitude towards
being in one? I mean, that same MB says "Even on Purim, there's no
heter except for s'chok which is zecher l'Achashverosh." Do any of us
(even the Israeli contingent) consider a non-Amelek-directed joke on
Purim to be *assur*? Is this normative halacha?

Akiva Miller

>>> I think the definition is in the mishna, shelosha sheyashvu ve'ein
>>> benehem divrei Torah. Do you have an alternative source?

> <<If you're going to take that absolutely literally and 
> apply it to every case where people get together then 
> almost every business meeting, <snip>  and so many other 
> scenarios fall under that category.>>

Actually, many people are rather makpid never to allow any gathering to go
by without words of Torah. It doesn't have to be the purpose of the entire
gathering but someone generally gives a dvar or says over something. As
a matter of fact, there is no nshei gathering in Beitar for any purpose
[and many of them are parties and plays l'chvod various holidays] where
someone does not give a dvar first. Many women that I know are makpid
never to let any activity go by, even talking to a friend on the phone,
without some dvar being given over by one of the two of them.

Therefore, I don't see any stira between this mishna and doing anything
in life. Why would it be so hard to inject words of Torah into a business
meeting as long as you are meeting with Jews?

 --Rena 

> Oh wait, I just looked back and notice that the mishna says 'divrei
> torah'. I guess that pshat won't work.

>> Look back again. The mishna says Shlosha SHE'ACHLU B'SHULCHAN ECHAD.

Okay, then this whole direction of the thread should never have gotten
started. It did because the mishna was quoted as 'shelosha SHEYASHVU...'.

So according to the mishna, the circus, which is not an eating gathering,
would not be classified as a moshav leitzim, correct?

Avi Burstein

"Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@fandz.com> wrote:
> AFAIK, chukos ha'goy would apply to any behavior that is adopted in
> an effort to imitate goyishe practice. 

...which can lead to AZ.

HM

Someone wrote <<< I think the definition is in the mishna, shelosha
sheyashvu ve'ein benehem divrei Torah.>>>

Others quoted it differently. I took the liberty of looking it up:

Avos 3:3 says that if TWO SIT together and there are no divrei Torah,
that's a *moshav letzim*.

Avos 3:4 says that if THREE EAT together without divrei Torah, that's
even worse, and is like eating *zivchei meisim*.

Okay, now that that is clarified...

R' Avi Burstein wrote <<< Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to set
any narrow and rigid boundaries here. ... But if you want to follow the
definition of the mishna, it doesn't seem to me to be good enough. All
these scenarios, which are considered acceptable to us would be deemed
a moshav leitzim according to the mishna, AIUI.>>>

I totally agree. But I would suggest that these "divrei Torah" don't need
to be in the form of a drasha. As I see it, the family dinner can be a
great time for everyone to talk about the events of the day; the goal
is that divrei Torah should be a natural part of that discussion. If the
divrei Torah ends up as a prepared speech, that will surely satisfy the
requirements of that Mishna, but the best is if it comes up on its own.

For example, someone may mention a food they saw at lunch or in a store,
and was wondering what the bracha was. One doesn't even need to answer
the question; simply mentioning the halacha and asking if it applies to
the situation is already more than enough. Or they can just mention a bein
adam l'chaveiro which they saw being observed, or c"v violated. Of course,
if someone heard an interesting chidush of any kind, that's great too.

We *can* have it both ways. Parents and children can get together for
a meal. Friends can get together to go shopping, or perhaps even some
form of entertainment. The meal and leisure are to strengthen the body,
and the shopping is for tzorchei mitzvah of some kind or other, but these
mitzvos don't transform the trip into "divrei Torah". But if the people,
in the course of their activity, make it a point to verbally remind the
others of our relationship with the Ribono Shel Olam, then that is the
kind of group which our mishnayos praise.

Akiva Miller

On 15 Apr 2004 at 19:56, Avi Burstein wrote:
>>> Look back again. The mishna says Shlosha SHE'ACHLU B'SHULCHAN
>>> ECHAD.

> Okay, then this whole direction of the thread should never have gotten
> started. It did because the mishna was quoted as 'shelosha
> SHEYASHVU...'.

> So according to the mishna, the circus, which is not an eating
> gathering, would not be classified as a moshav leitzim, correct?

That mishna doesn't refer to moshav leitzim. It says that someone who
doesn't say divrei Torah at the table is "k'ilu achlu mi'zivchei meisim."

 - Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son, 
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much. 

Iggeros Moshe, YD vol. 4 no. 11 sec. 1. According to RMF, circuses,
theatres, ball games, etc. are not chukos ha-goyim but are mosh'vei
leitzim.

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

"SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> OTOH isn't there a Chazal somewhere that forbids circuses?

The circuses which Chazal condemned involved avodah zarah, giluy arayot
and shefichat damim. Generally the crowd didn't go home without seeing
blood spilled, sometimes animal, often human, and this constituted
the core of the entertainment; the shows often included sexual acts;
and they were dedicated to various gods, at the preference of the sponsor.

Any blood spilled at Ringling Brothers shows, whether animal or
ch"v human, is accidental, and the crowd is expected to react to such
incidents, if and when they occur, with horror, not delight. The sexual
elements of the shows are so much tamer than what Chazal had in mind
that they're not even in the same category, but in any case they were
eliminated from this show. And of course there was no dedication to
avodah zarah.

 -- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Zev Sero wrote:
>The circuses which Chazal condemned involved avodah zarah,
>giluy arayot and shefichat damim.

The Gemara specifically says that, according to Chachamim, even when there
is no issue of AZ there is still a prohibition of Moshav Leitzim (AZ 18b).

And when the Magen Avraham (224:3) refers to Jewish "kaniga'os" and
applies the very same prohibition, is he also referring to such Jewish
events that include AZ, GA and SD? Or did he understand the prohibition
to be wider?

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

In a message dated 04/17/2004 3:23:27 PM EDT, betera@012.net.il writes:
>> 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.

I raised the original question on areivim but I think this belongs
on Avodah.

Given the various definitions of chukat hagoyim, why wouldn't this qualify?

KT
Joel Rich

In a message dated 04/17/2004 9:30:45 PM EDT, smash52@netvision.net.il writes:
> 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.

I was looking for an underlying reason as to where the measure of 2/7
comes from (as compared to once a year etc.)

KT
Joel Rich

Yirmeyahu Allen <yirmeyahu@juno.com> wrote:
> I do not think your assumption that what Chazal found offensive about the
> circus was gladiatiors...which I think is a completely different species
> of 'entertainment'...is unjustified. The Mishnah Berurah (307:59), citing
> Avodah Zarah 18b ossured circuses saying they where deffinantly "moshav
> l'eitzim" despite the obvious lack of gladiatiors even a century ago.
> Furthermore he grouped them with theaters and defined them, simply,
> as places of amusement.

> The extent to which this halachah applies may be debatable and their may
> be poskim who would disagree, but I think one would be hard pressed to
> say that the MB would matir going to the circus...and I don't think the
> 'kosher' circus address MB (or the Gemara's) essential concerns with
> these events.

The MB does not address kosher circuses at all. It is quite possible that
The MB would not have considered a kosher circus a Moshav Leitzim. The
fact that Rabbi Salomon thinks so is not proof that Rabbi Kagan would
have.

[Email #2. -mi]

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> R' Yirmeyahu Allen wrote:
> The Mishnah Berurah (307:59), citing Avodah Zarah 18b ossured
> circuses saying they where definitely "moshav leitzim" despite the obvious
> lack of gladiatiors even a century ago. Furthermore he grouped them with
> theaters and defined them, simply, as places of amusement...>>>

> I must admit, my reading of the MB is the same as RYA's presentation. Does
> anyone know of any rebuttal arguments, who might have a more lenient
> definition of "moshav leitzim", or a more lenient attitude towards
> being in one? I mean, that same MB says "Even on Purim, there's no
> heter except for s'chok which is zecher l'Achashverosh." Do any of us
> (even the Israeli contingent) consider a non-Amelek-directed joke on
> Purim to be *assur*? Is this normative halacha?

I think it would be best to define "Leitzim" at this point. It is NOT
jokes. It is specific types of humor that scoffs at things. If it were
jokes there would be no such thing as a Badchan. In fact I have heard
many a Badchan scoff at things. The scoffer that is a Leitz is one that
scoffs at the Torah.

HM

"Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@fandz.com> wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2004 at 3:35, Harry Maryles wrote:
>> Chukas HaGoy only applies to
>> such behavior or dress that would lead one to AZ. 

> AFAIK, chukos ha'goy would apply to any behavior that is adopted in
> an effort to imitate goyishe practice. 

...which could lead to AZ. R Moshe addresses the issue of not wearing
a Kipa in the workplace. He gives a heter if someones parnassa can be
harmed by it. But he clearly states that if one does so simply to imitate
Goyim than he is Oveir on Chukas HaGoy. The idea behind it is that if
one wants simply to imitate goyim, then he is in effect trying to act
like a goy and be liike a goy. This can ultimately lead him totally away
from Torah observance all the way to the AZ of a Goy.

HM

> Someone asked off list what the connection is between the kerias haTorah
> of Shabbos Chol Hamo'ed is to that day:

> Rav Dovid Cohen explains based on a Gemara that the tour of the Beis
> Hamikdash that was provided to the olei regalim and that included
> seeing the keruvim, with the description of the keruvim as showing
> "re'uh chibaschem lifnei Hamakom" was done on Shabbos Chol Hamo'ed.

> So, (bekitzur, ayen sham!) this day is appropriate to read the parasha
> in which our being "niflinu ani ve'amcha"; i.e. specially the objects
> of chiba, is mentioned.

May I offer a more prosaic explanation? The part of the k'riah beginning
with "P'sol l'cha" would be read even were it not Shabbos, because
of the mention of "Es chag hamatzos tishmor." However, at most six
aliyos can be made of those 27 p'sukim, unless one were to stop at an
inappropriate place. Hence, it is necessary to add, in the same way we
add A'seir t'aseir when the last day comes out on Shabbos; and since the
previous parsha begins with"gam es hadavar hazeh," which is the middle of
an inyan, we go back a few more p'sukim, to where the discussion begins.

I assume that the term "tour of the Beis Hamikdash" was used jocularly,
since the olei regel did not go traipsing around the Beis Hamikdash.
They stood where Yisraelim were permitted to stand, and the kohanim
lifted up the shulchan for the Yisraelim to see it from where they stood.

As for the comment that

> The Mishna and Gemara at the end of Chagiga (26 a-b) , which says that
> the olei regalim were shown the keruvim (NB Rav Dovid Cohen explained
> to me that this means the pictures of keruvim that Shelomo Hamelech put
> in various places in the BhM, not those on the Aron, which explains how
> they could show them to zarim) and the shulchan, which was raised up for
> the purpose (and was therefore mekabel tum'ah, which is what the Mishna
> starts off discussing).

the part about the k'ruvim is not in Chagigah, but in Yoma 54a, where the
g'mara says that the paroches was rolled so that the k'ruvim could be
seen. The g'mara then asks that in Bayis Rishon there were no parochos
(a wall separated heichal and kodesh hakodoshim), and in the Bayis
Sheini there was no aron, and hence no k'ruvim. Two answers are given:
(1) it was in Bayis Rishon, but there _was_ a paroches: in the doorway
between heichal and kh"k, which means that it _was_ shown to zarim (and
the g'mara explains why it was permitted); (2) it was in Bayis Sheini,
and the reference was to k'ruvim either drawn or carved on the walls.
Even according to (2), simple pshat is that the reference is to the walls
of the kh"k, since it is meant to explain the rolling of the paroches.

EMT

In Avodah V13 #5 dated 4/17/04 [R Meir Shinnar wrote]:
> The issue of a mashiach from the dead is a different issue....
> 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). ...

The L rebbe was a levy?

  Omer Day 12
 -Toby Katz

In a message dated 04/17/2004 9:30:54 PM EDT, betera@012.net.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...

> 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?

But he mentions small minyanim. I've seen generally 12-15 people try
to daven together on a flight.

KT
Joel Rich

The who is a posek issue has been on my mind for a while, with one
specific context: Yom Tov Sheini. Having researched the issue, I have come
to the solid conclusion of the Chacham Tzvi, who held that the determining
factor is location at time of Yom-Tov, and not general place of residence.

Do I have a halachic right to act in accordance with my view should the
issue come up (if i spend a yom-tov in E"Y)?

Raffy

From: Jonathan Cohen jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz
>  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, 

A cos from which an invisible person has drunk does not become pagum,
no matter what you tell your children.

Whether you should tell your children something you do not yourself
believe is another question. IMO you should tell your children that
Eliyahu Hanavi drank from the cup only if you yourself believe that.
In my case, I do not tell my children that he drank from the cup.

>  And thirdly
> aren't many acharonim choshesh of leaving the cup uncovered overnight?

My father zt'l covered the cup with a teller (a coaster). My husband
pours the wine back into the bottle.

  Omer Day 12
 -Toby Katz

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
<<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?>>

Chametz is batel beshishim before Pesach and is not chozer vene'ur.
So lehalacha one may certainly use chametzdik keilim under conditions
of bitul.

The reason we don't do it is because of a chumra not to be mevatel it
lechatchila despite the fact that it's heteira at the time of bitul.
Before the huge increase in hechsherim many people bought things like
dairy products before Pesach and relied on the bitul.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

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


[ 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         ]