Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 027

Monday, May 30 2005

• SheLo Asani Isha
• RE: Early Shabbat in EY (was: Swimming pool is a kosher mikveh?)
• Re: kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: Giving Up Kehuna
• RE: kofrim who say tehillim
• Re: shelo asani isha
• Early Shabbat in EY
• When does the availes end on Lag B'Omer?
• Re: When does the availes end on Lag B'Omer?
• Sefira question - another 1
• Re: Sefira question - another 1
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• RE: shelo asani isha
• Re: SheLo Asani Isha
• Re: When does the availes end on Lag B'Omer?

RHM:
> I wonder how any of the other women feel about what's been said on
> this thread.

Personally, I've really been enjoying Adereth's posts, especially since
they've thus far saved me the effort of writing that
1) Yes, men have a higher status than women in the Torah's hierarchy.
2) No, I don't mind. Once I accept the Torah's hierarchy, I'm already in
the 99th percentile for world population by being a Jew of any gender,
and I certainly have more than enough mitzvos to keep me busy.
3) I am tired of the constant apologetic refrain that actually women
are better than men and that's why they have fewer mitzvot. Not pshat.

That said, I agree with RMB that the world is pretty complex, and there
are different axes, or planes, or whatever, so that women also have
qualities or advantages that men lack.

I have found Sarah Schneider's approach (Kabbalistic Writings on the
Nature of Masculine and Feminine) very interesting. Acknowledgment of
a clear hierarchy on the one hand, but a cosmic view of the world that
sees this male/female hierarchy - indeed, all social hierarchy - as one
stage in the world's unfolding towards equality (but not sameness).

I would also note that there is a definite social hierarchy in the Torah,
men/women, free/slave, Jew/nonJew, Kohen/Levi/Yisrael etc. But I don't
think this is necessarily a hierarchy of inherent worth. Perhaps Korach
is correct when he says "kulam kedoshim iv'tocham H'" - but he is also
wrong, because this truth is relevant to each individual's spiritual
development and not to the question of national leadership or social or
family structure. Inherently, each person is b'tzelem Elokim.

Shavua tov,
Ilana

>Well, I am sure that there are minyanim doing early minchah (1:30 pm) in
>your neighborhood. In that case, you can do kabbalat Shabbat on your own -
>eh, with your family - be mekaddesh, eat, and once night sets in, go to
>daven with the standard minyanim (you may have to look for the Rabbenu Tam
>guys, in case your meal takes more time than between plag and zeit
>ha-kokhavim).

Thanks, "cousin" :-)

I had actually forgotten about this option. I'm just worried that I will
now have to eat 2 meals with my wrist watch in front of my plate. Se'udat
Shlishi was bad enough...

On a practical note. Besides for having to start eating .5 hour before
shkia (I assume), are there other halochos one has to keep in mind?

Thanks

- Danny

From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
> The Rambam doesn't mean that divrei torah are only capable of healing
> the soul not the body

"sheoseh divrei Torah refuos haguf v'einan ela refuos hanefesh" (H AZ
11:12) That's precisely what he says.

> Well, apparently he wasn't meticulous enough this time as the Rambam
> states openly that what Eliezer did was nechisha and assur (halachah
> dalet).

You're right about this one.

> Tosfos doesn't believe in the efficacy of lachash. He believes in the
> efficacy of divrei torah.

The two are not mutually contradictory. See, e.g., Biur haGra
Y.D. 179:13, conveniently cited in Frankel's edition of H. AZ 11:11.
The gemara recommends so many l'hashim that I would expect your default
position to be that they do work.

> The definition of lechisha is uttering sounds that have no meaning and
> are not part of any language and imagining (or attempting to cause others
> to imagine) that your "words" have thaumaturgical powers.

The Rambam uses that definition for "hover" (H AZ 11:10). He prohibits
hover and permits lahash. Are you confusing the two?

> Where does the Ramban say that lichisha works?

For kishuf in general see Parshas Shoftim 18:9. I couldn't find a
particular citation for l'hisha, but, as I said above, the gemara
recommends so many l'hashim for diseases that I would assume that the
Ramban's silence connotes assent.

> I find the above paragraph problematic. The Torah is full of
> transactional zechuyot.>

What I wrote was "I don't know of a developed theory of Judaism which
can justify the popular belief in transactional zechuyoth".

The reason I included the phrase "developed theory" was precisely
because there are traditional sources which can be understood to say
that transactional zechuyoth are effective. What I don't know is how
they can be effective. Certainly the Rambam would reject them, since he
has a well developed theory which leaves no room for them. Certainly the
Ramban would reject them with respect to illness, for which he has a well
developed theory. My impression is the Zohar would reject them. Even the
Noam Elimelech, who is the closest I can think of off the top of my head,
would accept them only in the context of a tzaddik-hassid relationship.

David Riceman 

From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mslatfatf@access4less.net>
> R' Russell Levy:
>>This shul has members who have 'given up' their kehunah to marry a
>> someone who would otherwise be assur (gerushah, zona, giyures) l'chatchila
>> (from a p'sak from R' Dovid Cohen based on RMF).

> I've never heard of this. Is it in Igros Moshe? If not, does anyone have
> more details? It seems to me (speaking from a position of ignorance) that
> the kids in such a situation will be chalalim no matter what. And, it
> seems that it's being oker davar min haTorah b'kum v'asei. So, what gives?

It isn't that simple. I have heard RDC speak of this on more than one
occasion. Basically, the argument he quoted from RMF is that Kehuna
requires a valid mesorah.

Therefore, if the person is known as a Cohen, but comes from a family
that has not been religious for a few generations, and there is no real
knowledge of or concern for his kehuna beyond his non-observant dad
having told him "I'm a Cohen", that is not enough to declare him a Cohen
al pi halacha. Especially today's Cohen BT's in their twenties, whose
non-frum moms attended University in the 60's and 70's, v'hameivin yavin.

RDC said that people who came to America declared themselves Cohanim
either for the kicks, the extra cash and kovod, or had their names changed
from a longer European surname to "Cohen" because it sounded Jewish (RDC's
family is one such example.), and then the kids retained the Cohen-status
confusion even when they threw away Yiddishkeit. That kind of faulty
mesorah is not very respectable. RDC says that this requires research.
It may in fact turn out that the person has an undeniable status and
that he's "stuck" (my word). e.g. If the Cohen himself is not frum,
but his father and grandfather were proud mesorah-dik' Cohanim.

Raffy

On May 29, 2005 David Riceman wrote: 
> From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
>> The Rambam doesn't mean that divrei torah are only capable of healing the
>> soul not the body

> "sheoseh divrei Torah refuos haguf v'einan ela refuos hanefesh" (H AZ 11:12)
> That's precisely what he says.

These words can be understood two ways. Either that they don't work as
a refuas haguf or that they are only supposed to be *used* as a refuas
haguf. I admit that it was your original post re kofrim who say tehilim
that made me re-examine this Rambam however, I upon further inspection,
I am convinced that this passage in the Rambam is best represented my
way not yours. The Rambam characterizes the aveira "sheoseh divrei torah
refuos haguf" which implies that the avaryan is actually effecting a
result with his usage of pesukim.

>> Tosfos doesn't believe in the efficacy of lachash. He believes in the
>> efficacy of divrei torah.

> The two are not mutually contradictory.  See, e.g., Biur haGra Y.D. 179:13,
> conveniently cited in Frankel's edition of H. AZ 11:11.  The gemara
> recommends so many l'hashim that I would expect your default position to be
> that they do work.

It is. However, what I am proposing in the *Rambam* is that when it
comes to lachash per se, he considers the type relating to mumbo jumbo
ineffective and thus a subset of chover as opposed to lachash using
pesukim which is not real lachash.

>> The definition of lechisha is uttering sounds that have no meaning
>> and are not part of any language and imagining (or attempting to cause
>> others to imagine) that your "words" have thaumaturgical powers.

> The Rambam uses that definition for "hover" (H AZ 11:10).  He prohibits
> hover and permits lahash.  Are you confusing the two?

No. He prohibits lachash too for exactly the same reason (sheino moil
klum which makes it a subset of chover "v'chol ossan hakolos...lo yareyu
v'gam lo hatov etam) but allows it under circumstances of sakana.

>> Where does the Ramban say that lichisha works?

> For kishuf in general see Parshas Shoftim 18:9.  I couldn't find a
> particular citation for l'hisha, but, as I said above, the gemara recommends
> so many l'hashim for diseases that I would assume that the Ramban's silence
> connotes assent.

I don't necessarily agree although you may be correct. Kishuf is a very
general term and to an extent, even the Rambam would have to admit that
it works as demonstrated with the chartumey mitzraim. Furthermore, the
Rambam himself admits in pirush hamishnayos that kisamim can work and
in fact he documents cases that he personally witnessed in the "eastern
lands" of its efficacy. A proof that the Rambam did not entirely reject
the effectiveness of the occult is that when he delineated the halachos
of nachash, kosem and meonen, he did not say that they were ineffective
just that they were assur.

>> I find the above paragraph problematic.
>> The Torah is full of transactional zechuyot.

> What I wrote was "I don't know of a developed theory of Judaism which can
> justify the popular belief in transactional zechuyoth".

> The reason I included the phrase "developed theory" was precisely because
> there are traditional sources which can be understood to say that
> transactional zechuyoth are effective.  What I don't know is how they can be
> effective.  Certainly the Rambam would reject them, since he has a well
> developed theory which leaves no room for them.

How can the Rambam's theory reject zchus avos for instance? It is openly
stated in the Torah. Perhaps your understanding of his developed theory
requires further refinement but I just can't see the Rambam's rejection
of lachash as an unconditional rejection of all transactional zechuyos.

>  Certainly the Ramban would
> reject them with respect to illness, for which he has a well developed
> theory.

What theory are you referring to? (There is one at the end of parshas bo
and one in parshas b'chukosai but neither would reject the effectiveness
of say zchus avos).

My impression is the Zohar would reject them.

Your impression is that the Zohar would reject the notion of zchus
avos? Or bra mizakeh aba?

>  Even the Noam
> Elimelech, who is the closest I can think of off the top of my head, would
> accept them only in the context of a tzaddik-hassid relationship.

Now you've entered into uncharted territory for me so I will have to say,
no comment.

Simcha Coffer

S & R Coffer <rivkyc@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> nashim da'atan kalos means 
> that woman, by nature, do not have strong personalities...they are not
> as adamant about things as men. Thus, it is not difficult to convince a
> woman to do something or to change her mind about something.

You mean... The Gemara is telling us that women are fickle?

HM

From: afolger@aishdas.org

<<Well, I am sure that there are minyanim doing early minchah (1:30 
 pm) in your neighborhood. In that case, you can do kabbalat Shabbat on 
your own - eh, with your family - be mekaddesh, eat, and once night sets 
 in, go to daven with the standard minyanim (you may have to look for 
 the Rabbenu Tam guys, in case your meal takes momre time than between 
 plag and zeit ha-kokhavim).>>

My daughter spent Shabbos a few weeks ago with Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky,
and reports that he davens early mincha with the yeshiva (the impression
I
got was that they daven early to accommodate him, but 1:30 will work
equally for the rest of us), goes home and eats the seudah, and then
returns
to the yeshiva for ma'ariv.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Yitzchok Levine <llevine@stevens.edu>

<<However, I do not understand how
they can be listening to music on the night of Lag B'Omer. I know that
the availes of Shiva ends on the morning of the 7th day, not on the
night of the seventh day. I would have thought the same concept applied
to Lag B'Omer.>>

My son asked a shaila if he could go to a hadlaka where there would be
music.  He was told yes, since it's Thursday night and impossible to
have it on Friday night.  Sounded like it would not normally be mutar,but
as I told him, this is a very Litvishe shaila to ask;  YMMV depending
whom
you ask.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

[YMMV = "Your Mileage May Vary", a reference to the standard
disclaimer in auto ads. For this and many other standard acronyms,
see <http://www.aishas.org/avodah/acronyms.shtml> -mi]

>My son asked a shaila if he could go to a hadlaka where there would be
>music.  He was told yes, since it's Thursday night and impossible to
>have it on Friday night.  Sounded like it would not normally be mutar,but
>as I told him, this is a very Litvishe shaila to ask;  YMMV depending
>whom you ask.

YMMV = ?

Why does he have to go to a bonfire at all? I see no mention in the MB
about a bonfire on the night of Lag B'Omer or even during the day. Is
this not another example of people "making up" a new religion?

Your son's question is not "a very Litvishe shaila." It is a question
that everyone should ask. Actually, it should not be a question at
all. The default should be that there is absolutely no reason to go
to such an event. I have no recollection of bonfires on Lag B'Omer 30
years ago except perhaps in Meron.

Rav Avigdor Miller said more than once, "It is a big mitzva to quickly
buy an esrog and then to go and sit and learn for 4 hours." I think that
the same can be applied to a bonfire on the night of Lag B'Omer. In my
not so humble opinion, it is better to learn for 3 hours than to dance
around a bonfire for 3 hours.

Y. Levine

From: T613K@aol.com

<<why DO we find words like "shomayim, chayim, mayim" which NEVER seem 
to have a singular form (unlike hand, eye, leg, which CAN be just one)but
ALWAYS
seem to be in the double form>>

I recall Rav Bulman quoting RSRH on the derivation of shamayim as the
"set of
equidistant (it's a set of equals, as in shinayim, not necessarily a
pair) 'shams"
"theres".

Seen more recently, shamayim (in its metaphysical sense) relates to sham,
as
destination, whereas eretz (as in ratz) refers to the process of getting
there.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 5/29/05, Minden <phminden@arcor.de> wrote:
> Simon Montagu wrote:
>> Should we also say "halayla haze pa'amayim" in the Mah Nishtana?

> No, we shouldn't. This is the language of chazal, not of mikro.

Agreed. My question was ironical.

Moshe & Ilana Sober <sober@pathcom.com> wrote:
> Personally, I've really been enjoying Adereth's posts, especially since
> they've thus far saved me the effort of writing that
> 1) Yes, men have a higher status than women in the Torah's
> hierarchy.

That's interesting. You accept being a second class citizen. I maintain,
however that you are not a second class citizen at all. I believe that
in the perfect world of the God given Torah system, it is a zero sum game.

That Cohanim have a higher status is a function of the requirement by God
for special service to him. This gives a Cohen a higher status in Olam
HaZeh vis-a-vis Klal Yisroel's requirement to honor God through honoring
his servants. IOW it is not so much to give them honor as it is for us
to honor them. But in Olam HaBah it all equals out. A Cohen's work in
Olam HaZeh is rewarded on an equal level in Olam HaBah as that of a Zar,
whose work is different but ultimately equally weighted in the eyes of
God. It is understandible that God gives a higher status in this world
for those chosen to do the service in the Holy Temple. Ther closer you
are to God, the higher the status. The same is true to a lesser extent
for Levi'im. But Men do not have the distinction of being singled out
for service over women. Men and women are part of the same covenental
agreement. That men have more Mitzvos does not seem to me to be a reason
to say, "Blessed are You O' Lord for not making me a woman". We each
have our purposes and our own means to acheive them.

> 3) I am tired of the constant apologetic refrain that actually women
> are better than men and that's why they have fewer mitzvot. Not pshat.

Why then do women have fewer Mitzvos? ...requiring of them, less than
a man? What's the explanation for that?

I maintain, for example, that if women are Patur from MASHZG because
of the nature of their roles as mothers etc, then it is built into
the system that they don't need MASHZG to acheive the same results.
The logical deduction is that women are is some way more spiritually
developed than men. This is not apologetics. It is logic.

> That said, I agree with RMB that the world is pretty complex, and there
> are different axes, or planes, or whatever, so that women also have
> qualities or advantages that men lack.

I quite agree. I believe this bolsters my question. If men and women
"equal out" in some way, why exactly are men thanking God for not making
them a woman? Six of one... half dozen of the other. No?

In the eyes of God our individual strengths and weaknesses which are
different from each other equal out! As you point out:

> this male/female hierarchy - indeed, all social hierarchy - as one
> stage in the world's unfolding towards equality (but not sameness).

> I would also note that there is a definite social hierarchy in the Torah,
> men/women, free/slave, Jew/nonJew, Kohen/Levi/Yisrael etc. But I don't
> think this is necessarily a hierarchy of inherent worth. 

Yes, I agree. See above.

> Perhaps Korach
> is correct when he says "kulam kedoshim iv'tocham H'" - but he is also
> wrong, because this truth is relevant to each individual's spiritual
> development and not to the question of national leadership or social or
> family structure. 

Individual difference means that each individual is judged on his own
merit and not compared to others with greater or lesser strengths.
Therefore if I, HM, live up fully to my own potential I will have
succeeded in the eyes of God. I am not to be compared to a RYBS for
example whose strentghs were far superior to my own. He is judged by a
higher standard. But this applies to individuals, not an entire sex,
IMHO. Otherwise you must say that men are to women like RYBS is to
HM. (i.e. Men are innately superior to women.)

> Inherently, each person is b'tzelem Elokim.

Precisely. So, the reason for the Bracha...?

[Email #2. -mi]

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> The problem is that we judge fairness in terms of everyone getting the
> same thing for the same work. But is that middas hadin?

Are you saying it isn't? 

> I would think that middas hadin means that my reward is commesurate with
> my action -- and that someone's potential for punishment is equal to
> his potential for reward. This conversation is comparing across people,
> I would instead call for comparing vertically.
> It's possible that a woman plays a lower-stakes game than does a
> man. Fewer chiyuvim means both fewer qiyumim, but also fewer opportunities
> for violations.

I don't diasagree. But all that means is that it is a zero sum game.
So, what's the Bracha for?

> Or it's possible that because "nashim, daatan qalos" (lighter, easier
> to move), each action has *greater* impact on the self, thereby causing
> greater sechar (or r"l onesh), and therefore the stakes of the whole
> game are the same.

OK... same question: So, what's the Bracha for?

> The same happens to be true for benei Yisrael vs benei Noach as well. Having
> more mitzvos isn't an unmitigated berakhah. It's more opportunities -- which
> means a greater chance to go either way.

Right... So, what's the Bracha for?

> As for "Kol Yisrael yeish lahem cheileq..." I wonder about the difference in
> real terms. A Jew who lacks emunah isn't a Yisrael in the sense meant by this
> mishnah. 

Yes he is... until that moment that he opts out of Emunah. Until that
point he has a Chelek.

> Which is how the mishnah becomes the Rambam's launching pad for
> discussing the ikkarim. OTOH, a non-Jew who has emunah has earned the olam
> haba he wasn't born with. So what's the difference between having olam haba to
> lose, or not having it but being able to earn it -- if the criterion for this
> keeping his olam haba is identical to the criterion for that one earning his?
> Ideas?

I'm not sure there is any practical difference. It is a pshycological
one. Although it might be argued that the point of the Mishnah telling
us that Olam HaBah is ours to lose and theirs to gain is that a Jew has
an advantage in that he is born into a system where he is far more likely
to be a Maamin than a non Jew.

> The CI (as the famous story goes) would stand when a neighbor with Downs would
> enter the beis medrash. This ma'aseh was his way of teaching that there is a
> concept of having fewer mitzvos because there's less need for them.

This is the example used to sshow me that it isn't always an advantage
in being on a higher level. The CI felt that a Downs syndroem individual
was closer to achieving God's purpose for him than a normal person
is to achieving God's purpose for himself. This argument assumes that
women are closer to God's idea of perfection. The problem I have had
with this isn that woemn are then equated to being comprable to people
with Downs syndrome.

> OTOH, there's the concept that having fewer mitzvos puts you lower down
> on the ladder. One would not assume the extra chiyuvim encumbent on benei
> Yisrael is because we're /less/ than the non-Jew. Counting mitzvos isn't all
> that informative.

Right. Then why does Rashi tell us that SheLo Asani Isha is due to the
fact that we ...DO... have more Mitzvos? (IOW we ... ARE... counting and
that is precisely why the Bracha was authored that way.)

> For that matter, someone can have a life with more opportunities,
> another with less. Two people of the same "class". Is it fair that a qinos
> shenishba has fewer opportunities to do things as lofty as I do? 

Circumstnces dictate the way in which God responds to them. No
one can blame a Tinok SheNishbah for not being able to perform the
Mitzvios. proprtly.. That being said I ask, "Is it likely that a Chazan
Ish probably gets more Schar than a Tinok Shenishbah?" I'm not really
sure. But, if he does than it is inherently unfair and is another problem
I would have (that is tangentially related to this thread).

> I get to
> put on tefillin most mornings, he wasn't given that opportunity to know
> what tefillin really are, or even to be pushed to try it. Is one greater
> than the other? Or does it depend on what each makes of the
> opportunities?

I believe that God judges each person on his own merit and circumstance
and that a person's response does depends on what he or she makes of
the opportunties.

> Counting mitzvos therefore tells you nothing.

It must tell you something according to the classic explanation of the
Bracha. Men have more Mitzvos... therefoe they say Shelo Asani Isha.

...
> OTOH, look at the berakhah women say instead. (Although it's a late
> berakhah, without the clout of a tanna or amora behind it. Many
> kehilos, including most of Sepharad and Teiman, say it without sheim
> umalkhus.) What does that fact that only women say "she'asani kirtzono"
> say about men? We're less like His Ratzon!

No. I beleive that Bracha was written as a form of apologetices.

> R' Aharon Soloveitchik says this idea, and explains why women are the
> "crown of creation", created last in the progression.

Isn't that the same as saying that they are created closer to God's
idea of perfection form than men? ...making them better and less in need
of Mitzvos?

> There are two modes of acquisition in RAS's thought: kibbush, taking it;
> and chazaqah, using and developing it.

> Hashem imposed more mitzvos upon men to limit their natural predisposition
> towards excessive and abusive kibbush. If not tempered, this abundance
> of male energy can be destructive. Women don't need such restrictions,
> as they have a healthier balance between kibbush and yishuv. 

Making them "better" people thus requiring less Mitzvos. In this
scenario, Why am I thanking God SheLO Asani Isha? Wouldn't I rather
be of this higher nature... having a healthier balance between kibbush
and yishuv

> As per
> the brachah (blessing) that they recite: "She'asani kirtzono -- Who
> has made me according to His will." Women's innate qualities as the
> last created creature (Rabbi Soloveichik words this as "the crown of
> Creation"), are already aimed at the fulfillment of G-d's ultimate desire
> for mankind. 

So, in essense RAS is saying, SheAsani Kirtzono is a greater Bracha
than SheLo Asani Isha. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. (I know he is my
Rebbe but I do not agree with everything he said.)

> OTOH, taking from RYBS's thought man's disposition toward qibbush
> makes him more of a partner working toward that end. Thus he is given
> mitzvos. He is the one who coins halakhah in covenental partnership
> with the RSA. Man's qibbush is the power to advance, including advancing
> HQBH's plan forward so that we are able to reach yom H' hagadol vehanorah.

> Each has their maalos. Revel in them!

We should. I do. So why do I make the Bracha SheLo Asani Isha?

HM

On May 29, 2005 Harry Maryles wrote: 
> You mean... The Gemara is telling us that women are fickle?

If "fickle" means that by nature, women do not have as strong
personalities as men, i.e. they are not as adamant about things as men,
they are more amenable to change than men, they are easier to convince
than men, then yes, the Gemara is telling us that women are fickle.

Simcha Coffer

Harry Maryles wrote:
> Moshe & Ilana Sober <sober@pathcom.com> wrote:
>>Personally, I've really been enjoying Adereth's posts, especially since
>>they've thus far saved me the effort of writing that
>>1) Yes, men have a higher status than women in the Torah's
>>hierarchy.

> That's interesting. You accept being a second class citizen.

I haven't really been following this thread too closely, but I've dipped
into it and something here bothers me. But I think that something is
symantic rather than content.

There are various formulations that have been presented for how women
and men compare. I think the important point is whether anyone actually
thinks that women are intrinsically worth less than men. That is an idea
that I would have trouble with and I suspect largely what's bothering RHM
and co. Once we agree that all of us have the same intrinsic worth, but
are not all identical, all the other formulations are just attempts to pin
down the balance sheet. A exercise which might be useful in attempting
to understand our roles in this world, but which in an ultimate sense
is beyond us.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
<israel@email.arizona.edu>
Dept. of Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering

At 10:54 PM 05/29/2005, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>On Sun, 29 May 2005 20:12:12 -0400 Yitzchok Levine <llevine@stevens.edu>
>writes:
>He doesn't;  he was curious (about going to a bonfire) and he's 19.

This morning I spoke with a friend of mine who is the mashgiach of a
(Litvishe) Bais Medrash here in Brooklyn. He told me that his son called
him and asked if he could go to a bonfire on the night of Lag B'Omer. He
told me his first reaction was, "Are you crazy? Where do you come to
a bonfire on Lag B'Omer?" In the end he felt he had to let his son go,
because "all of the other boys were going."

><<Actually, it should not be a question at all. The default should be that 
>there is absolutely no reason to go to such an event.  I have no 
>recollection of bonfires on Lag B'Omer 30 years ago except perhaps in Meron.>>

>300 years ago, maybe.  30 years ago, all over E"Y.  It's only become more 
>common here during that time.

My friend (the mashgiach) said something to the effect, "Maybe the
Chassidim have some connection to this bonfire business, but not us!" I
replied, "So it is them and us still." He replied, "Absolutely!"

And here we come to the crux of the matter in my opinion. Judaism has
become a mishmash. People no longer adhere to their minhagim, to their
Mesorah. Few seem to be willing to buck what others is due. For example,
I know a number of people whose fathers put on Tephillen during Chol
Moed who no longer do, because many of the people where they daven put
on Tephillen. (I am referring to places where there is a mix of those
who do and don't. I know that this itself is a problem.)

The same is true of not eating Gebrokts. There are people who do not
have this minhag who now keep it, because "most others do."

Give me that old time religion!

Y. Levine

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


[ 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         ]