Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 014

Friday, April 30 2004

• RE: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: When is a Mechitzah Necessary?
• Re: When is a Mechitzah Necessary?
• Re: Adir Adireinu (in kedushoh for mussaf on some yomim tovim)
• Re: Heicha kedusha and informal minyanim
• Re: keruvim
• Re: Sefiras Ho'Omer
• Re: Limmud or Ma'aseh?
• Re: 24/7
• Re: who is a posek
• RE: Shutfus and Demus Haguf
• Defining music
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: When is a Mechitzah Necessary?
• RE: Christianity
• Re: Heicha kedusha and informal minyanim
• Re: concert anywhere vs. In shul (was "RE: 24/7")
• Re: When is a Mechitzah Necessary?
• Subject: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• RE: Entering a C Synagogue

> 3. One may not be in a place where others are sinning. Since davening
> without a mechitzah is a sin, one may not be in a place where people are
> davening without a mechitzah. At times when people are not davening,
> and a mechitzah is not otherwise required (if there are such cases),
> then this would not be a problem. However, many poskim hold that any
> gathering held in a synagogue sanctuary requires a mechitzah.

So a C Shul has the din of a Synagogue?

Akiva

In a message dated 4/28/2004 5:42:18 PM EDT, gil@aishdas.org writes:
> According to some, a mechitzah is a din in a mikdash me'at and is only
> required in a shul. However, some - such as the Seridei Eish and Rav
> Uziel - require separation at other events, although an actual mechitzah
> separating the genders is only necessary in a shul.

> Some, such as the Chasam Sofer, require a mechitzah at any place in
> which there is a public gathering for prayer or praise of Hashem.

> R. Moshe Feinstein requires a mechitzah at all public events, including
> lectures and shiurim. I have heard that his grandson, R. Mordechai
> Tendler, tries to sometimes make a point of personally inviting people
> to his shiurim so that the shiurim are not technically open to the public
> and therefore are not public gatherings and do not require a mechitzah.

The Gmara in Kiddushin requires separate seating at any drasha.

However, mechitza - as we know it - is a din of erva IN THE CONTEXT OF
HILCHOS KRIAS SHMA and possibly Tefillah by extension

AIUI, RYBS's tshuvah re: mechitza makes a simlar chiluk. Between Separate
seating {a possible d'roaisa of lo yeiroeh lecha ervas davar) and its
implementation re: Davening which would be a drabbanan.

So this chiluk is simple. In davening a mechitza would be needed but at
a simcha or a lecture or a concert any separate seating is enough.

At a Chasunah a mechitza might be desirable when dacning takes place;
I say desiarble so that if prevents memebers of the opposite gender from
deisring each other as they dance! --smile--

FWIW, at KAJ choral concerts, separate seating is required, but no
mechitzah At social dinners, mixed seating is arranged so that you have
husband next to a wife and next to another husband on the other side:

H-W-W-H etc.

Shalom and Kol Tuv,
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com 

Avi wrote:
>Could you elaborate on this? I don't understand.
>If the problem is the different sexes being near
>each other, then what difference would it make if
>the participants were specifically invited or not?

The difference is between a private function and a public
function. According to R. Moshe Feinstein, if something is open to the
public then a mechitzah is required. If it is invitation-only, like a
wedding, then a mechitzah is not required.

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

In a message dated 4/15/2004 3:12:05 PM EDT, Phyllostac@aol.com writes:
> Based on a look at some siddurim (siddur Sefas Emes /
> Heidenheim/Rodelheim and Lubavitch siddur), it seems that 'Yekkes' and
> Lubavitchers do not say it on sholosh regolim (the latter possibly not
> even on yomim noroim ?). Do any Sepharadim / Benei Eidos Hamizrach say
> it ever ?

Note also, see Bae'rs Avodas Yisrael in the Kedusah of Shabbas Mussaf.
Originally it was inserted ONLY on Yamim Noraim, but spread to Yamim Tovim 
too.

FWIW, I am convinced that the Yimloch as we have it in the kedusah was
lifted from the next to last paragraph {i.e. v'simloch} before Hamelech
Hakadosh in the RH and YK Shmone Esrai.

Proof?
Note that kdusas yotzeir lacks it and kedushah desidra {i.e. Uva leTzion}
Hashem Yimloch instead.

Shalom and Kol Tuv,
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com 

In a message dated 4/20/2004 9:02:01 PM EDT, AStein@wtplaw.com writes:
> does it make sense to say that, with respect to an informal minyan of ten
> men (which I had just led), one did not need a chazaras hashatz, because
t> he takanah never applied to such a minyan? Is this a good sevarah?"

> RDC answered me: "Yes, I think that is a good sevarah. Anyway, the whole
> idea of davening at a chasunah is a sha'as hadchak, what with the all
> of the distractions...."

I have heard that Yeshivos use the Sha'as Hadchak heter for heicha kdusha

Shalom and Kol Tuv,
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com 

> this story happened at the time of the first churban, not the second.

or rather, an after-second-hhurban midrasher told a story to convey a
message he wanted to get through. en mikra yotse mide peshuto; mikelal
zeh anhhnu shome'im shemidrash yotse weyotse.

/dw

> As RML writes, one can use cardinal or ordinal numbers for quantity
> (discrete counting). For example, a baby is 7 days old when it has its
> beris on the 8th day.

> I do not understand RML's connecting this to counting up vs counting down. 

What I was trying to say that first can be counted the minute it entered
and it does not connote completeness. An entity is being defined by
its relationship to other members of the set, nothing else. One, on the
other hand, is properly only counted once it is complete.

One, as I actually discussed in the book on Shema, is a composite term
that can mean first, singular, complete, indivisible, unique. The concept
of temimus is implied in the very term. That is why the Tosafos required
counting in the very beginning of the day, to encompass the day. It
does not require temporal completenes, to be at the end of the day,
but it does require conceptual completeness. Similarly, kiddush is in
the beginning of the day but it sanctifies the entire day. You can count
one in the beginning of the day but you are counting the entire day and
are therofore counting backwards.

M. Levin

Nature
> 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 Volozhiner
> on v'hogisoh boh yomom voloiloh. It was also rejected by TIDE german
> and western societies.

Can you please give the exact reference & quote from Rav Levi Yitzchoq
where he disagrees with Rav Chaim Volozhiner?

Kol Tuv,
Moshe Schor

In a message dated 4/26/2004 5:09:42 PM EDT, Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu writes:
> But how did they get over the problems of the issur of Kol Isha 
> and the Chazal that a woman who  bathes in the view of men -
> 'mitzvah min hatorah legarshoh' [Gittin 90b]?

1) There are few written sources about this - however, there are certain
oral traditions.
2) WRT to kol isha and opera, there are numerous heterim
    a) Issur applies only if one can have social connection with
    the singer
    b) Issur doesn't apply if it is a woman Plus (tre kolim enam
    nishmaim)
    c) Issur of kol isha only applies to the problem of saying davar
    shebikdusha in its presence 
AFAIK #c is the the simple pshat of the Gmara in Brachos.  If there is 
another source in Gmara I would be interested in seeing it.

It is arguable that any other application of an issur kol isha is chumra,
minhag lifnim mishuras hadin etc.

Of course in a community that has laready strictly prohibited all forms
kol isha it could be argued that to intridue it would be poretz geder.

In a message dated 4/22/2004 2:52:21 PM EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> But I think that one can look at this from a whole different perspective
> just as well, and call it a "shaalah issue". In other words, where is the
> line drawn between the question which a person can decide for himself,
> and those which he refers to a posek.

> (I am working under the presumption that there are at least *some*
> uestions which a person can decide for himself, based on having learned
> the basic principles to a greater or lesser depth...

Should be a thread of its own....

A chaver of mine once insisted that everyone should defer to their poseik
I argued that in the final analysis we are each our own poseik in that we 
choose
A)  WHICH shei'los we ask 
and
B)  HOW we phrase those questions

Here is a simple idea to consider.

Yonah predicted that Nineveh would be overturned but it was not. Why was
Yonah's credibility not questioned? Did Ninevenh realize that the Rambam
(Gmara?) makes a chiluk between good prophecies and bad ones?

Answer. The only time we need PROOF of a prophets relizbilty is when we
have a doubt and ask. HKBH does not need to endorse or confirm an already
acceapted reliable prophet. And since Yonah was already muchzak as a
prophet, he had nothing to prove by needing to prognosticate correctly.

Simlarly R. Y. Caro claims that he defers to his proverbial Beis Din.
But we see many exceptions. How come the BY/SA does not ALWAYS follow
HIS OWN RULES?

The simple answer is the same. He only takes the QUESTIONABLE cases to
his BD. However, those cases he already KNOWS how to pasken he does not
bother to defer to his BD.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Benidan didan, i.e. re: the Chacham Zvi and YT sheini I would ask:
Are you sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the CZ is correct? If so
there is NO NEED To ask a question.

Here is another wrinkle.

Let's say you are 100% convinced that the Chacham Zvi is correct but you
are not convinced that being correct is enough because his psak lacks
consensus and therefore you are chosheish for the consensus psak - even
though you suspect that the concensus psak is fundamentally in error?!

This might be parallel to a zaken who KNOWS the Sanhedrin is wrong but
loses out in the vote anyway. See The argument of R. Yehoshua and Rabban
Gamliel re: the Calendar. R. Yehoshua was 100% convinced that Rabban
Gamliel was wrong, but was advised to defer anyway. WHY? He had no safek?

BTW, one possible answer is that calendar stuff is fundamental a public
communal thing and NOT a private thing. So I might dispute the majority
view re: the kashurs os a piece of meat and run off in private and rely
upon my own POV w/o damaging anyone. But if I observe another day of YT
differently you get into other issues.

Then again, if the issue is los sigogdeddu, then CZ makes even MORE sense!

Shalom and Kol Tuv,
Rich Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com 

The problem with categorizing most forms of Notzrus is that their core
belief is inherently self-contradictory -- they know it, and consider it a
"mystery".

One can't reason about a contradiction. (It's provable that in boolean,
true/false, logic once you accepts a single contradiction any suggestion
can be "proven" true.) So how does one pasqen on one?

RZS proposes that it's not even shutefus, since that they believe a
teiruz exists to the polytheism, even if they assert that the answer is
beyond human ken.

Isn't it equally valid to head through the contradiction the other way?
An answer exists to their claim of monotheism as well.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            stifle others?

How do we define music WRT qol ishah and aveilus?

Music is comprised of a number of elements: melody, harmony, rhythm,
instrumentation -- the latter including voice and lyrics. The definition
of music is hotly debated, but some list like this is a place to start.

Shirah seems to be rhythm + lyrics, and therefore includes both poetry and
song. Would that mean an instrumental without voices wouldn't be shirah?

In any case, which of these or other elements would be prohibited?

(This started with a question someone asked me about the permissability
of Rap "Music" during the omer...)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            stifle others?

I wrote:
>One may not be in a place where others are sinning.

Joel Rich wrote:
>Where is this issur found?

Avodah Zarah 18b (Soncino translation):
"R. Simeon b. Pazi expounded: What does Scripture mean by, Happy is
the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the wicked, nor stood in
the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the scornful? If he did not
walk at all how could he stand there? And if he did not stand there he
obviously did not sit, and as he did not sit among them he could not
have scorned! The wording is to teach thee that if one walks he will
subsequently stand with them, and if he stands he will at the end sit
with them, and if he does sit, he will also come to scorn, and if he does
scorn the scriptural verse will be applicable to him, If thou art wise,
thou art wise for thyself, and If thou scornest thou alone shalt bear it."

R' Hershel Schachter once told me that this applies to being in a place
where there is mixed dancing and that it is an issur de'oraisa. In RHS's
words (more or less), "The passuk tells us we can't walk with them because
it might lead to standing which might lead to sitting, so of course we
can't sit with them." (This refers to during the actual time of sinning.)

>Can I eat with people who don't make brachot?

Good question.

>so a c synagogue sanctuary qualifies as a synagogue
>sanctuary but it's in a bet minut?

It loses its kedushah because it does not have a mechitzah. You can't
then argue that because it does not have a mechitzah it does not need
one. That's circular logic.

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

On 29 Apr 2004 at 15:31, Gil Student wrote:
>> Can I eat with people who don't make brachot?

> Good question.

Based on something Rav Asher Weiss said in his shiur tonight, I would
argue that you can.

RAW brought the Shulchan Aruch (OH 163 and 169) that says that you cannot
give someone something to eat if they won't make a bracha because of
lifnei iver.

Now imagine, someone is working on the roof of your house in the heat,
he comes downstairs, sweating profusely. You have water on your table,
but oops, can't give him any because he won't make a bracha....

RAW brought RSZA's Minchas Shlomo (1:35), who says that if you DON'T give
him water, you're creating a lifnei iver of Sinas Chinam, and therefore
you're allowed to give him something to drink even if he won't make
a bracha.

I would argue that at least in some circumstances it could be lifnei
iver if you refuse to eat with someone who won't make brachos - lifnei
iver for sinas chinam.

 - 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. 

>>Could you elaborate on this? I don't understand.
>>If the problem is the different sexes being near
>>each other, then what difference would it make if
>>the participants were specifically invited or not?

> The difference is between a private function and a public
> function. According to R. Moshe Feinstein, if something is open to the
> public then a mechitzah is required. If it is invitation-only, like a
> wedding, then a mechitzah is not required.

Ok, so I'll rephrase the question. Why would a private function have any 
different allowances for intermingling of the sexes than a public one? 

Avi Burstein

Zev Sero
> The Rambam seems to say there that emuna without tziyur is worthless.
> In that case, how can we believe in Hashem's infinitude? Or His
> timelessness? Or, for that matter, the very simplicity that he is talking
> about in this chapter? As he says elsewhere, our brains are physically
> incapable of grasping these concepts; all we can do is describe them,
> believe that they are so, and accept that we will never actually
> understand them.

According to the rambam, we don't believe in hashem's infinitude, but
that he is not finite, etc, etc.

Furthermore ,the notion of tziyur is not imagining a physical
representation.

> A simplistic reading of this chapter could equally be applied to
> the Sefirot. The language he derisively uses of the Xian belief - 'hu
> vetoarav echad' - sounds very like the Zohar's 'ihu vechayohi chad, ihu
> vegarmohi chad'. So either the Rambam doesn't quite mean this exactly
> as it sounds to the first-time reader, or he does mean it, and his view
> on this matter is not correct.

Several issues:

1) hu vetoarav echad is not the description of christianity - christianity
is hu echad, aval hu shlosha, vehashlosha echad - which he equates to a
Jewish believer saying hu vetoarav echad - arguing multiplicity within
the unity.

2) The argument that "his view on this matter is not correct" is
breathtaking - there are many who disagree with the rambam, and one can
say that he is a minority, he is rejected by most, etc, but stating flat
out that he is just not correct??

> In any case, I don't see him saying here that someone who does believe
> in this way is an idolater. Perhaps such a belief doesn't count as true
> emunah - I certainly have no problem saying that Xianity is wrong! -
> but there's a wide gulf between that and AZ, even in the attenuated form
> of shituf.

The notion of shittuf doesn't appear in the rambam as a heter - that is
the shitta of baale hatosfot. While what is dealt here is not called
avoda zara, it is a violation of the ikkar that hashem is one - which
is the foundation of the problem with avoda zara.

Meir Shinnar 

In a message dated 04/29/2004 3:29:47 PM EDT, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com writes:
> I have heard that Yeshivos use the Sha'as Hadchak heter for heicha kdusha 

and the dchak is??

KT
Joel Rich

In Avodah V13 #13, RYGB replied:
> It's in my first email on the topic and I quoted it verbatim.
Yes, you did quote it, and I do see how you can derive "The SE would have
forbidden attendance at any concert anywhere would *the residents of '
eretz Ashknaz'* [my substitution for your "anyone" --MP] only heed the
protest." (Separate topic: why the SE felt that the "masqono" of unnamed
"Posqim" [presumably, pos'qim for non-German communities] outweighed
a p'saq for and accepted by the "y'ray-im" such that he was trying to
be m'lamaid z'chus for them instead of accepting that another Rov could
pasqen differently for his community.) Thanks for entertaining my private
questions as I tried to understand your derivation and understanding of
the SE's t'shuvah.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

AAARRRGH!!!! People have GOT to differentiate between "mixed genders"
and "no mechitza but separated genders", or you'll just be adding to
the confusion.

R' Gil Student wrote <<< R. Moshe Feinstein requires a mechitzah at
all public events, including lectures and shiurim. I have heard that
his grandson, R. Mordechai Tendler, tries to sometimes make a point of
personally inviting people to his shiurim so that the shiurim are not
technically open to the public and therefore are not public gatherings
and do not require a mechitzah. >>>

I have a friend who used to be the in-house rabbi at a certain Jewish
nursing home. The shul had separate seating, but the mechitza was not as
high as he felt it should be. He consulted someone -- I'm not positive
but I do think that it was R. Mordechai Tendler or at least another of
RMF's descendants -- who paskened that because the shul is not open to the
public, but only to the invited friends and relatives of the residents,
the shul counts as a *private* gathering, which requires only separate
seating, and does not require any mechitza at all, so the low mechitza
which they had was more than enough.

R' Avi Burstein asked about RGS's post: <<< Could you elaborate on this?
I don't understand. If the problem is the different sexes being near
each other, then what difference would it make if the participants were
specifically invited or not? >>>

There are two distinct issues here. The problem is not merely <<< the
different sexes being near each other >>>. Mingling of the sexes is
one problem, which can be solved by separate seating. *Preventing*
mingling of the sexes is a second problem, which can be solved by a
mechitza. Say what you want about the inappropriateness of men and women
who mingle, that problem is solved by having them not mingle. Requiring
a physical separation is a big chidush which is learned out from the
Beis Hamikdash, and is required only of situations which are similar to
the Beis Hamikdash. Apparently, one of the properties which distinguish
the Beis HaMikdash from other situations is the fact that it was a public
place, and at least some poskim use this to show that private events never
require a mechitza -- though they might still require separate seating.

It seems to me from RGS's post that RMT *does* require separate seating
at his shiur, and the invitations serve to allow the absence of mechitza.
(Practical example: perhaps the shiur was in the men's section of a shul,
with only an aisle separating the men and women.) Another possibility is
that since we're talking only about a shiur, and *not* about davening,
perhaps RMT considers the invitations to make it a private gathering like
a Sheva Brachos, where the women and men are actually mixed. (That's
just a guess; I don't know how RMT holds on whether a Sheva Brachos
needs separate seating or a mechitza.)

Akiva Miller

Some years ago we were invited to a family bar mitzvah which was to
take place in a C synagogue. I asked RAS zt'l what I should do. He said
(paraphrased) you know that I am a big believer in sholem bayit, this
also applies to sholem mishpacha. You should go, daven before and make
certain that they do not offer any and surely do not accept any kibudim.

kt
steve

> R' Asher Weiss brought RSZA's Minchas Shlomo (1:35), who says that
> if you DON'T give him water, you're creating a lifnei iver of Sinas
> Chinam, and therefore you're allowed to give him something to drink
> even if he won't make a bracha.

This is the third anecdote in the past few weeks (that I can recall)
where we see a posek being 'meikel' for something based on a chashash
which is commonly not given much weight. The other that I remember is
someone mentioning how his Rav (someone he described as pretty RW) told
someone that even for a small cut one should treat it seriously and have
it taken care of, even if it means going to the hospital, because of the
chashash of pikuach nefesh. I’m pretty sure that there was another example
but I can’t seem to recall it at the moment. Is this a new trend? Or have
many other people here had similar experiences? (I definitely haven’t.)

This psak of RSZA seems quite amazing, doesn’t it? A posek is allowing
an explicit SA to be overridden on the basis of a consideration which
definitely doesn’t seem to be very strong. I would think that along those
lines of thinking many positions which are based on 'mere' hashkafic
issues, and not solid halachic ones, like standing for a siren, or saying
a misheberach (to tie-in to a parallel Areivim thread) should definitely
be allowed, especially since the chance of causing more sinah is even more
likely (and at this point unfortunately isn’t even a chashash anymore).

In fact, wouldn’t this psak seem to disprove that commonly heard
contention that "we don’t change halacha just because of what others
might think about us"?

Avi Burstein

On 29 Apr 2004 at 19:46, Avi Burstein wrote:
> This psak of RSZA seems quite amazing, doesn’t it? A posek is allowing
> an explicit SA to be overridden on the basis of a consideration which
> definitely doesn’t seem to be very strong. 

If you think about it, it's not so amazing. The SA is based on Lifnei
Iver. The chashash of sinas chinam is based on Lifnei Iver. If anything,
there's probably more of an argument that the Lifnei Iver of Sinas Chinam
is d'oraysa (trei ibrei d'nahara) because the guy can walk out of your
house and get a drink, but it's with respect to YOU that he'll have the
Sinas Chinam.

I would think that along those
> lines of thinking many positions which are based on 'mere' hashkafic
> issues, and not solid halachic ones, like standing for a siren, or saying
> a misheberach (to tie-in to a parallel Areivim thread) should definitely
> be allowed, especially since the chance of causing more sinah is even more
> likely (and at this point unfortunately isn’t even a chashash anymore).

I don't think that any serious posek today argues that one who is in
public when the siren goes off should not stand for the siren. Do you know
of anyone who holds that if you're in public when the siren goes off, you
should continue to go about your business? That doesn't mean that I have
to stand in silence in my house when the siren goes off (especially if I'm
learning Torah - when I was in Yeshiva we never even heard the siren go
off during seder!). But in public? I don't think any posek will tell you
that it's mutar to continue going about your business. Certainly not RSZA.

> In fact, wouldn’t this psak seem to disprove that commonly heard
> contention that "we don’t change halacha just because of what others
> might think about us"?

I don't think it's a question of changing halacha. I think it's a question
of how you balance halachic considerations - which comes first.

One of these days, I'll have to drag you to R. Asher's shiur....

-- Carl

> In fact, wouldn’t this psak seem to disprove that commonly heard
> contention that "we don’t change halacha just because of what others
> might think about us"?

Not really -- because this psak is one step removed (i.e. that contention
is stated regarding changes to MY observance of halacha. This psak
relates to someone elses.)

Also -- the midrash of Avraham giving food to travelers in the desert
comes to mind. He would give people food, and only AFTER they ate ask
them to make a bracha.

[Email #2. -mi]

> Now imagine, someone is working on the roof of your house in the heat,
> he comes downstairs, sweating profusely. You have water on your table,
> but oops, can't give him any because he won't make a bracha....

> RAW brought RSZA's Minchas Shlomo (1:35), who says that if you DON'T give
> him water, you're creating a lifnei iver of Sinas Chinam, and therefore
> you're allowed to give him something to drink even if he won't make
> a bracha.

Why go to this extreme? ANYTIME someone asks for food you could create a
"lifnei iver of sinat chinam" if you refuse.

Akiva

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


[ 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         ]