Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 007

Monday, April 19 2004

• torah portion
• Re: davening in plane
• chukat hagoyim
• Re: 13 ikkarim
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• Re: Circuses... NOT your father's Oldsmobile
• Re: Circuses
• Limmud or Ma'aseh?: V'hogisoh Boh Yomom Voloiloh
• Re: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• 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
• Re: cos shel eliyahu
• tocho k'varo
• Re: Limmud or Ma'aseh?: V'hogisoh Boh Yomom Voloiloh
• RE: Limmud or Ma'aseh?: V'hogisoh Boh Yomom Voloiloh
• Re: Ringling Bros.and Barnum & Bailey circus goes kosher for a day
• Re: Circuses... NOT your father's Oldsmobile
• Re: Circuses... NOT your father's Oldsmobile
• Re: Circuses... NOT your father's Oldsmobile

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
<<If we're talking about pictures, how does this show chibah? Were the
pictures with the keruvim facing eachother, away from eachother or even
ch"v hugging?>>

"Kim'ar ish veloyos" means hugging at the very least. That's what the
pictures showed.

<<How does one know which picture on the wall represents what's really
going on live within the qodesh haqadashim.>>

Even if it didn't "update" like a webcam, it still showed chiba, as above.

<<The Rabanan disagree, based on a pasuq, and say that the aron was taken
out only once, in Eli's day, and shouldn't have been (which is why it was
captured). I'm not sure what the chachamim do with the story of Yericho,
where the pasuq says the aron lead the procession around the walls.>>

That was before the mishkan was set up (in gilgal?), and therefore the
aron didn't have to be taken out, it was out since they were marching
into E"Y with it.

<<Note that these demonstations are aimed at ma'aminim. Cynics would
simply say they snuck in new loaves.>>

Are you so sure there were cynics then?  Who were oleh regel?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

>> 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.

No.  The reports I read refer to small minyanim throughout the plane and 
not one large one that interferes with the other passengers and the crew.

It would be nice to read the precise decsion of Harav Vozner.

~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:laser@ieee.org

Recent posts in Areivim have attempted to apply the issur of chukat
ha'goyim to situations that are well beyond the classical halachic
applications, as I understand them. I understood chukat hagoyim to apply
to Gentile superstitions - particularly if they had an idolatrous source
or motivation, or even to merely irrational customs. Taking your kids
to a circus or a ballgame is a way of providing an enjoyable experience
to those whose well-being is your desire and duty. It does not pander
to superstition nor to anything inherently irrational. How can that
be considered to fall under "chukat ha'goyim"? Stranger, yet, is the
intimation that monogamy may fall under the rubric of chukat ha'goyim.
Is this a serious question? The motivation for the cherem of Rabbenu
Gershom may, indeed, stem from an embarassment that the Christian world
practiced official monogamy, while Jews could officialy take more than
one wife. The fact that monogamy was considered the holier arrangement
was not, however, an imitation of a Christian concept. It is the ideal
arrangement promoted in the Torah in " Therefore shall man leave his
father and mother and attach himself to his wife, and they shall become
as one body".

Yitzchok Zlochower

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

Oops.

I've spoken to him on numerous occasions. R Dr David Berger sits behind
my father in shul. I can speak with a good deal of certainty that when
he speaks about L messianism violating the ikkarei emunah, he means the
13 ikkarim, and not using the phrase as some shorthand.

If you've noticed, he is a published part of the re-action within the
MO world to the trend RMShapiro exemplifies. The notion that O has well
defined limits is very much his position.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 12th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        1 week and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Gevurah: What aspect of judgment
Fax: (413) 403-9905                  forces the "judge" into submission?

Like several others I think that at this point we're just repeating
ourselves. In this post I propose to repeat myself in full, that is,
to summarize what I think the entire debate was (to avoid confusion I'll
use PMS for Professor Shapiro and RMS for Dr. Shinnar).

The Rambam in PHM Sanhedrin 10:1, in order to define "Epikores", lists
thirteen principles. He says that if a person believes all of them then
"hovah l'ahavo v'lahmol alav", but if he rejects any one of them "hova
l'sanoso ul'hashmido".

PMS recently published a book devoted to demonstrating that, in fact,
the halachic consensus has not followed this passage. He does this by
listing examples of people who have rejected principles of the Rambam
but whom we nonetheless consider gedolei olam.

<<digression #1: two interesting lacunae: he does not mention examples
of people, like Moses Mendelson, who accepted the Ikkarim but whom we
nonetheless write out of orthodoxy, nor does he mention kabbalah, which
the Rambam would have considered a clear violation of the doctrine of
God's unity.>>

Several people have suggested that PMS's intentions were grander than
he claimed. I think that's silly, first, because he should have said so,
and second, because he accomplished nothing grander in his book.

RDE, if I understand him correctly, thinks that PMS succeeded in
his endeavor but wishes that he hadn't made the information public.
His opinion is quixotic, but belongs in a sociological rather than a
halachic discussion.

RMB and RGS claim that PMS was wrong. They qualify this twice: first
they are unwilling to apply the consequences to heretics, i.e. they
distinguish between heresy and heretics. Second, they wish to modify
the Ikkarim somewhat, e.g., they don't consider kaballah to be heresy
(I'm guessing here since we didn't discuss this point).

I and RMS think that PMS was right, and that if a doctrine was adopted
by an adam gadol it cannot later be considered heretical.

By making their two qualifications RMB and RGS concede PMS's point.
The Rambam's Ikkarim, as written, contain neither qualification (though
the Rambam elsewhere contains both, see, e.g. PHM Hullin 1:1, H. Mamrim
3:3).

<<digression #2. The PHM Hullin 1:1 also contains the claim that in
the Maghreb they executed many people for heresy. Given the Rambam's
skepticism about post-Biblical miracles I wonder how the Hazon Ish dealt
with that?>>

As an exercise, I wonder if RMB or RGS would write a modified Ikkar
#2 strict enough to satisfy the Rambam but lenient enough to include
mekubbalim. I suspect it can't be done, which would go some way to
disproving their claim.

RGS and I disagree about whether we can retraoctively condem an adam
gadol for heresy. RMB conveniently provides a nafka mina. If a potential
convert came to Beis Din and said: "I believe in God's unity, and I
believe that the doctrine of Sefiroth is false and heretical," would
he be an acceptable convert? According to RGS, if his (unspecified)
adjustemnts to the Ikkarim include a belief in sefiroth, the answer is no.
According to me the answer is yes.
The problem is that the proof works only in one direction. As RMS has
pointed out, Battei Din can reject converts on grounds that have nothing
to do with Ikkarim (indeed, Ikkarim themselves are a Maimonidean addition
to the remit of the court supervising conversion). So even if the court
would reject such a convert that doesn't prove that RGS is right. Indeed,
given RGS's lenient attitude to heretics I can't think offhand of a way
to prove that he is right.

David Riceman

On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 04:47 -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
>> 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...

I don't understand this logic. is he claiming that the goyim we live
among are ovdei AZ? Would it make a difference if one lived in a
muslim country?

When visiting the Beit Shean Talmud (Roman) era theater, I remember 2
Yerushalmis being quoted to me, both "heterim" for going to circuses in
that Era. One was in the name Rabbi Natan IIFC.

1. to be able to save people: apparently the emcees of the "gladiator
match" or "gladiators against the Jews match" or the "wild animals
vs. the Jews acts" would frequently ask the crowd for a "thumbs up" or a
"thumbs down" relating to the victims. If there were Jews in the crowd,
they could respond in such a way that Jewish lives would be saved.

2. Another Amorah said you could go to the circus and thereby save
Agunot. Assuming there were Jewish victims in the above mentioned acts,
if there were Jews in the crowd, at least they could testify thereby
freeing the wives from being agunot.

All this seems a far cry from Barnum and Baily, circa 5764.

RCarl:
>> support raising that family is more important than learning torah. 
>> and I'm sure that others can point out other cases that are "doche"
>> learning torah.

> I think the paradigm here is between hutra and dchuya. The time spent
> not learning Torah in order to make a parnassa is time that is dchuya
> from learning; it's not hutra .. That means that whenever you're not
> making a paranssa you should be learning Torah and that the ideal really
> is learning Torah 24/7.

no. it's not. it wasn't true when asserted previously and it's not
true now. not even if repeated as if it were a self understood given
she'ain ole'hoh m'ar'arim. rather, one should say it's the ideal of one
segment of frum society -- most faithfully represented by a large social
grouping in eretz yisroel -- deriving its present weltanschauung from
a small cheleq of the 19th century lithuanian community. Proximately it
rests most directly not on chazal but on the innovative formulation of
r. chaim voloshiner and the example of the gra.

But it was rejected by an even larger Chasidic community -- in an
earlier iteration I quoted R. levi Yitzchoq's take (Bais Halevi,
Ovos) as quite different from that of his contemporary R. Chaim V --
on v'hogisoh boh yomom voloiloh. It was also rejected by TIDE german
and western societies. It was even rejected by yeshivish litvaks who
gave formal musar learning, and "p'ilois", precedence for some period
of the day. the fact that the latter two groupings have for all intents
and purposes disappeared does not vitiate their ideological force or
respectability. I am not familiar with ideological underpinnings of
edot hammizrach to comment knowledgeably -- though come to think of it,
that never seems to have been required for commentary in this forum,
so I add I'd be surprised if r. chaim's ideology were the baseline norm
there either. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it were even rejected
by RCarl's wing of this list -- unless they think that, e.g. the gra's
approach to family life in his successful pursuit of 24/7 is actually an
"ideal" which ordinary people, nebech, might not be able to realize in
practice, but should admire and to which they should aspire.

Limmud or Ma'aseh? The earlier interchange was catalyzed by the expressed
opinion that it was better to sit and learn than go out and perform
a mitzvoh (delivering tzorkhei shabbos to poor families if I remember
correctly -- with caveats whether it might be mitzvoh vs a "regular"
seder and/or? whether others might pick up the slack). I believe RCarl is
faithfully reflecting much current ideology, but I'd have advised going
out to deliver. chasidic tradition is clear -- ma'aseh is greater. This
too has relevance to the notion of 24/7 learning.

Mechy Frankel			H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil		W: (703) 845-2357
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

David Riceman wrote:
>PMS recently published a book devoted to demonstrating that, in fact,
>the halachic consensus has not followed this passage. He does this by
>listing examples of people who have rejected principles of the Rambam
>but whom we nonetheless consider gedolei olam.

><<digression #1: two interesting lacunae: he does not mention examples
>of people, like Moses Mendelson, who accepted the Ikkarim but whom we
>nonetheless write out of orthodoxy, nor does he mention kabbalah, which
>the Rambam would have considered a clear violation of the doctrine of
>God's unity.>>

Prof Shapiro did in fact address the issues of  Mendelson and  Kabbalah.

In his index on page 217 you find the following
Mendelssohn, Moses 30-1, 31 11. 155

In his index on page 219 you find the following
Sefirot:
    doctrine's denial seen as heresy 64
    prayers directed to\vards, according to kabbalistic beliefs 42-3
    regarded as contrary to the unity of G-d 40-1, 43

>Several people have suggested that PMS's intentions were grander than
>he claimed. I think that's silly, first, because he should have said so,
>and second, because he accomplished nothing grander in his book.

>RDE, if I understand him correctly, thinks that PMS succeeded in
>his endeavor but wishes that he hadn't made the information public.
>His opinion is quixotic, but belongs in a sociological rather than a
>halachic discussion.

This is a gross misunderstanding of my position. But I don't think
another repetiton will improve the situation.

Daniel Eidensohn

[RGD:]
> 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.

Why do we no longer purchase things like dairy products before Pesach
relying on bittul? If these products are manufactured by non jewish
companies (and I think we must say also not produced under a machshir),
then it's not bittul issur lechatchila, it's just plain muttar. Cooking
in ones own Ch kitchen before Pesach raises the question of BILeChatchila,
however it seems that as Gershon points out, there should be no problem;
we are not dealing with Ch mamesh but only ta'am which the MB seems to
say is OK.

meir

From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
>><<digression #1: two interesting lacunae: he does not mention examples
>>of people, like Moses Mendelson, who accepted the Ikkarim but whom we
>>nonetheless write out of orthodoxy ...

> Prof Shapiro did in fact address the issues of  Mendelson and  Kabbalah.

> In his index on page 217 you find the following
> Mendelssohn, Moses 30-1, 31 11. 155

I'm wrong about kabbalah but you're wrong about Mendelson. None of the
references mention that MM is commonly ruled out of orthodoxy even though
he accepted the Ikkarim, he is merely mentioned as someone who disputed
the necessity of Ikkarim.

>>RDE, if I understand him correctly, thinks that PMS succeeded in
>>his endeavor but wishes that he hadn't made the information public.

> This is a gross misunderstanding of my position.

It may be a misunderstanding, but it does flow out of your words: Here's
one of your previous posts (heavily edited):

<<I think Prof Shapiro would have done better if he had adhered to an
earlier self description. He had written ... "... 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...."

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 .... 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 ... 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.>>

You raise four points:

0. other agendas
1. shoddy scholarship
2. misleading to non-scholars
3. offensive to rashei yeshiva

I discussed 0 in my previous post. I didn't mention 1, since I thought
the mistakes were sparse enough not to disprove his claim. I summarized
2 and 3 as "wishes that he hadn't made the information public". You may
claim that your expressed preference is a change in style rather than
a change in content, but I doubt that any change in style would assuage
either of those doubts.

David Riceman

R' David Riceman wrote:
>>><<digression #1: two interesting lacunae: he does not mention examples
>>>of people, like Moses Mendelson, who accepted the Ikkarim but whom we
>>>nonetheless write out of orthodoxy ...

>I'm wrong about kabbalah but you're wrong about Mendelson.  None of the
>references mention that MM is commonly ruled out of orthodoxy even though he
>accepted the Ikkarim, he is merely mentioned as someone who disputed the
>necessity of Ikkarim.

As we have discussed in the past - Mendelson is a complex issue. It is
not clear in what sense he could be said to accept the Ikkarim. So it
would not be simple to say that despite his acceptance of the Ikkarim
"we nonetheless write him out of orthodoxy".

Prof Shapiro states on page 31.
"Mendelssohn also believed that Maimnides' Thirteen Principles had
significant religious and educational value, and he therefore translated
then into German and included them in a book he published for students:
see A. Shohet, Changing Eras, 256; A. E. Simn, 'Philanthropism', 163.
However, rather than recording them with the formulation 'I believe',
he used the phrase 'Ich erkenne fur wahr und gewiss' (I recognize it
as true and certain). In section I of Jerusalem (p. 63 in Altmann's
and Arkush's edition) he listed G-d, providence and future life as the
fundamental principles 'on which all religions agree, and without which
felicity is but a dream'. "

There are other issues involved with Mendelson which justify keeping
him at arm's length - other than whether he believed the Ikkarim.

Dr. Isaac Breuer (Hirsch as a guide to Jewish History in Jacob Breuers
Fundamentals of Judaism): "[p242] Every great historical personality
is a revolutionary personality. As a result of his historical mission,
he usually finds himself in strong conflict with his contemporaries. The
more significant his mission, the greater is the conflict which continues
to rage among the descendants until his mission is accomplished; what
used to be a revolutionary becomes an accomplished fact, a matter of
course. Yet a revolution within the Jewish people develops differently
than those of any other nation. Every revolution among the nations of
the world represents a violation of the law… [p243] The revolutionaries
of the Torah-true Jewish nation do not turn against G-d's law. They turn
against the circumstances. Whenever the circumstances in the life of the
Jewish society change so profoundly that they threaten to jeopardize the
all embracing rulership of the Torah, "legitimate" revolutionaries appear
on the historical scene to solve the tension between G-d's word and the
"new" circumstances, not by revolt against the Torah but by seizing
the new circumstances and proclaiming over them in complete contrast
to the prevailing opinions, the absolute rulership of the Torah. They
then proceed to re-model and reform, or if necessary to destroy and
re-build these circumstances until they conform with the demands of
the Torah and supply new nourishment for the eternally flaming fire
of G-d. Such revolutionaries were the founders of Chassidism. Such
a revolutionary was also Samson Raphael Hirsch. The parallel between
Chassidism and Hirsch becomes obvious with the realization that the
founders of Chassidism were confronted by a situation basically similar
to that facing Hirsch. New, changing circumstances were to be won over
to the Torah, and this is precisely what these revolutionaries proceeded
to do…. [p 244] No one recognized more clearly the conflict between the
new circumstances and the Torah than Moses Mendelssohn. This Moses,
however, was neither a legitimate or illegitimate revolutionary. He
helped acquaint his people with the new circumstances, hoping that the
Torah could somehow be assimilated to the changing conditions. There is
a direct link between Mendelssohn and the illegitimate revolutionaries
of the reform who bent and broke the word of G-d until it conformed with
the new circumstances. .."

>>>RDE, if I understand him correctly, thinks that PMS succeeded in
>>>his endeavor but wishes that he hadn't made the information public.

>>This is a gross misunderstanding of my position.

>It may be a misunderstanding, but it does flow out of your words:  

Let me briefly describe my position. I have no problem with enlightening
people about religion - I think my positings attest to that. I have no
problem with people becoming aware that religion is more complex and
profound then they realized. I also have no problem with people becoming
informed that the Rambam's principles require study to be understood
and that a simple reading of any theological statement is likely to be
misleading. [a point well made by Chovas Halevavos]

My main criticism involves the concern that Prof Shapiro's material has
not been presented in a coherent, scholarly way so that the readers would
in fact understand fully what is going on. I feel that Prof Shapiro's lack
of development of the nature of belief - relying in large part on the
previous works of Prof Kellner and Louis Jacobs - is counterproductive
to enlightenment. I feel that the book needs better editing to ensure a
consistency of purpose and concept - something which is lacking and leads
to confusion. I felt the confrontational and flipant tone of the work
would militate against the Roshei Yeshivos seriously evaluating what Prof
Shapiro was writing. Thus contrary to your assertion I am very interested
in the public knowing. As a side issue, I have been working for the last 5
years on a source book of hashkofa and am very well aware of the ignorance
and misconception that exist even among some roshei yeshiva. But I am
also fully aware of the dangers of a confrontational approach in educating
the public. I am well aware of events in recent years where various works
have elicited massive repression because they were perceived as threats
to the spiritual well being of the public. One can not trod heavily in
these areas - no matter how well documented your evidence might be. I am
concerned that genuine theological dialogue is being smothered because
of legitimate defensive reactions to confrontational works. Thus I am
not against public discussion of the Ikkarim but rather am concerned
that a golden opportunity was lost.

Daniel Eidensohn

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

The Chasam Sofer used the wine from the cos shel eliyahu for kidush at the
seudah's tom tov the next day, as mentioned in the Hagada's Chasam Sofer..

our minhag is also, to cover the cos with a coaster and use the wine
for morning kidush..

Simcha G

Discussions of the parameteres of v'hagita bo and shachen ra have
touched on the question of admittance to yeshivot on the basis of
family background, and the idea of tests in yeshivot. This issue is
also quite a hot topic in Israel at the moment, with opposition to the
vast numbers of yeshiva students, especially ones who lich'ora are not
intent on their limud. Initially I thought that tests would be a good
way to decide who gets funding, but this gave me pause for two reasons.
One, the gemara about 'tocho k'varo' where the gemara states that we do
not require talmidim to be without blemish before we admit them. Two,
the concept of torah lishmah. If we regard talmud torah as autilitarian
activity designed to produce gedolim, then fine, but if we believe in
otrah lishmah, how can we turn anyone away just becuase they are not
academically brilliant. The halachic questions here about running yeshivot
and supporting talmud torah are perhaps avodah questions. But there
are sociological aspects here that might be best addressed on areivim

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

On 18 Apr 2004 at 17:58, Michael Frankel wrote:
> But it was rejected by an even larger Chasidic community -- in an
> earlier iteration I quoted R. levi Yitzchoq's take (Bais Halevi,
> Ovos) as quite different from that of his contemporary R. Chaim V --
> on v'hogisoh boh yomom voloiloh. It was also rejected by TIDE german
> and western societies. 

Why do you say it was rejected? I didn't say that there's anything 
wrong with working. I said that when you're not working, you should 
be learning. Do you think RSRH went to circuses (R"L) when he wasn't 
taking care of his community? 

> It was even rejected by yeshivish litvaks who
> gave formal musar learning, and "p'ilois", precedence for some period
> of the day. 

Learning musar isn't learning? 

-- 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. 

>>> and I'm sure that others can point out other cases that are doche
>>> learning torah. ...the ideal really is learning Torah 24/7.

> no. it's not. 

I also have always heard it explained as RCS explains this inyan and it
seems to be the most understandable way to see things. However, there
is support for RMF's position as well.

We read in Pirkei Avot this past Shabbos, [1:17]: "Shimon b'no
omer:...'v'lo hamidrash hu haikkar, eleh hama'aseh'"

To which the Biur Mishna explains [translation mine]: This is to say
that also in words of Torah is not [found] the ikkar, we receive schar
only on the action...

The entire pasuk is talking specifically about shtika, but it seems that
the principle is universal to the difference between doraish -ing and
doing a good thing -- the biur mishna explains better to shut up and do
than to doraish about it. Thus, one would get the impression from this
pasuk that it's better to just quietly go and deliver tomchei Shabbos
packages than to give a shiur about the aspects of the inyan.

Awaiting responses....

---Rena 

In  Avodah V13 #6 dated 4/18/04  Elazar M Teitz <remt@juno.com> writes:
> 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....

Something just struck me that did not strike me the first time I read
this, namely, the words BNOS YISRAEL. In the context of the passuk,
Naomi would be saying to Rus, "You may have gone to theaters in circuses
and theaters in your former life, but Jewish women don't." Not, "but
Jews don't."

Is the implication that there is some lack of tznius in women going to
public places of mass entertainment, there to mingle with hoi polloi?
Men go, but women don't?

Or another possibility: Perhaps it is taken for granted that MEN do NOT
go to places of entertainment, because they have an issur of bitul zman,
and the chiddush in Medrash Rus Rabba is that WOMEN--even though they
don't have to learn Torah--ALSO don't go to such places, even if for
different reasons.

Or: Perhaps the implication is that men DO go--even though they
shouldn't--but women do not go--a sociological observation on the part
of the author of MRR (true in his time if not in ours). Is there some
hint of "bizchus nashim tz idkonios...." , some suggestion that [Jewish]
women tend to adhere to the proprieties better than men do, under the
pressure of a surrounding immoral culture?

  Omer Day 13
--Toby Katz

On 18 Apr 2004 at 4:47, Harry Maryles wrote:
> ...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.

I don't recall Rav Moshe referring to AZ in that tshuva, and there's 
a huge dispute among the poskim whether today's Christians are ovdei 
AZ.

-- Carl

On 18 Apr 2004 at 17:35, Shaya Potter wrote:
> I don't understand this logic. is he claiming that the goyim we live
> among are ovdei AZ? Would it make a difference if one lived in a
> muslim country?

I believe that you're correct - that at least in a modern context, he 
has vitiated the definition of Chukos HaGoyim. 

-- Carl

Shaya Potter <spotter@yucs.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 04:47 -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
>>> 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...

> I don't understand this logic. is he claiming that the goyim we live
> among are ovdei AZ? Would it make a difference if one lived in a
> muslim country?

RMF's psak only mentions that if one does so simply to imitate Goyim
than he is Over on Chukas HaGoy. I was expressing my interpretaion of his
Psak based on my understanding of the reasons for the Issur of Lo Selechu.

Also, There is a Machlokes Rishonim as to whether Christians are
considered Ovdei Avodah Zara. I believe we paskin that they are not
being Over AZ through their theology of Shituf. But that does not tkae
away the Issur since for us Shituf is considered AZ.

As for Muslims I simply dont know. My guess is that any behavior that
leads one away from Torah Judaism would qualify for the Issur.

HM

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


[ 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         ]