Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 94

Wed, 02 May 2007

• 1. Re: tachanun - avel, chattan & brit (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: fashion models and opera singers (Rabbi Y. H. Henkin)
• 3. Re: "Yeshiva is a mikva." (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Yom Ha'Atzma'ut (Jonathan Baker)
• 5. Re: tachanun - avel, chattan & brit (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: tachanun - avel, chattan & brit (Rich, Joel)
• 7. When do the malachim come? (Dov Kay)
• 8. pesach sheni [from Hakhel] (Newman,Saul Z)
• 9. Re: fashion models and opera singers (Chana Luntz)

I imagine R' YBS would respond that it's a din in the beit avel (as is
not learning) not the gavra
KT
Joel Rich


________________________________

	From: avodah-bounces@lists.aishdas.org
[mailto:avodah-bounces@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Eli Turkel
	Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 6:53 AM
	To: avodah
	Subject: [Avodah] tachanun - avel, chattan & brit
	
	
	We recently had an avel in shiva in our minyan. A quick check
verified
	that one says tachanun. It is only in the house of the shiva
that tachanun
	is not said. OTOH tachanun is omitted if there is a chatan in
the
	minyan. For a Brit Milah it is omitted even if the Brit is at
another 
	minyan in the same shul even if none of the participants are at
this
	particular minyan. The question is 
	1. why does shiva not affect Tachanun of the tzibbur (not in his
house)
	2. A chatan stops Tachanun but only in his minyan 
	3. A Brit stops tachanun in all minyanim in the same shul
	
	kol tuv
	
	-- 
	Eli Turkel 

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070502/a7ba70d7/attachment-0001.html 

 

 >Can the same thing be said about a frum female who wants to wear a

 bikini at the beach - it's those men looking at her that are

 transgressing, not her?  And, since these men are at the beach where     there are other women dressed in a similar fashion), there's no

 problem with "lifnei eiver."<

 

 >I think we all would agree that this would,in fact,be wrong. If so,

 how is it different than singing at the opera - both are "displaying

 their erva"?<

 

The difference is that Lifnei Iver is violated in that the viewer of a woman in a bikini likely would have sexual thoughts?hirhurim. The listener to a female singer in an opera likely would not, nowadays. Hence, no Lifnei Iver.

A women's voice is still  ervah in that Chaza"l decreed that one may not recite a davar shebik'dusha while hearing her sing, regardless of the presence or absence of hirhurim. But that is a different Halachic category.

Rabbi Yehuda Henkin


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070502/03975ce9/attachment-0001.htm 

From: T613K@aol.com
....the marriage of a BT man (who had  been frum a long time and had
learned in mainstream yeshivos) and FFB  woman where my father said, in
regard to the question of ben nidah, "Yeshiva is  a mikva."
>>

I heard similar beshem the CI.

SBA
_______________________________________________
Interesting, but would they say the same for their own family (i.e. is
this a lchatchila or bdeieved explanation)
KT
Joel Rich

PS IIRC R' MF had something about maybe the mother went to the beach
etc. and it was thus OK
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

From: "Samuel Svarc" <ssvarc@yeshivanet.com>
 
> >However, the CS does very clearly state that the tzibbur of an entire 
> >medinah (such as the State of Israel) can accept upon itself a chag.
> >You may have a point as to whether people in Chutz La'aretz may 
> >celebrate YhA to the extent we do here.
 
> When something is established illegitimately, as a new Yom Tov for Klal
> Yisroel, the whole thing falls off. If instead, they would have made a
> "Purim d'EY" like many cities made "Purim's" throughout history when they
> had a nes, who knows, many more people might be holding it today. But this
> didn't happen. It was packaged as a new "Yom Tov", something which is
> problematic halachically and led people to suspect, rightly or wrongly, that
> this was to push the view that the Medina is 'aschalta d'geulah'. "T'fosteh
> m'rubah, lo t'fostah."

They may call it a "chag" or a "yom tov", but the practical effect is 
of creating a Purim.  What are the observances for the day?  Hallel,
a leining, some extra tehillim, no tachanun, and a party (barbecue).

Which is (absent the matanos l'evyonim) exactly what we do on Purim.

Hallel in lieu of the Megillah (the Gemara states "megila halelya hu",
and in fact some poskim have said that if on a desert island without
a megillah, one should say hallel instead)

Pesukei dezimra of yom tov, like Hoshana Rabbah - also linked to
salvation.

Seudah (the barbecue)

No tachanun/hesped (just like all the other rabbinic holidays such as
the Megillas Taanis days).

There's no suppression of melacha, no musaf service, etc. which would
actually categorize it as a Yom Tov Mikra Kodesh.

Critizing the "packaging" rather than the actual practice of the day as
a parallel to Purim, indicates that the object is to criticize for any
reason.  Starting off "the whole thing was established illegitimately"
denies the tzibur's authority to create such a day - do you actually have
a counterargument to the CS, or are you just assuming your conclusion?

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

I agree but the question is why is aveilut only dependent on the
house but chatavn affects everyone.
To reverse what RYBS says I am asking the why and not the what !


On 5/2/07, Rich, Joel <JRich@sibson.com> wrote:
>
>  I imagine R' YBS would respond that it's a din in the beit avel (as is
> not learning) not the gavra
> KT
> Joel Rich
>
>  kol tuv
>
> --
> Eli Turkel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070502/37c967b9/attachment-0001.html 

Good question but IIRC it's a question on the gemara(mishna?) which uses
the term beit avel by aveilut but not by chatan.  As R' YBS always said,
we don't ask why, we ask what :-)!
When asked this by someone I ventured a guess that by the aveilut it has
to do with the neshama of the meit being there ( I don't really know
what that means but have heard of the general concept - but as a good
actuary, given a fact I make up an explanation:-))
KT
Joel Rich



	= ======================================= 
	
	I agree but the question is why is aveilut only dependent on the
	house but chatavn affects everyone.
	To reverse what RYBS says I am asking the why and not the what !
	
	
	
	On 5/2/07, Rich, Joel <JRich@sibson.com> wrote: 

		I imagine R' YBS would respond that it's a din in the
beit avel (as is not learning) not the gavra
		KT
		Joel Rich

			
			kol tuv
			
			-- 
			Eli Turkel 

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070502/921eca10/attachment-0001.htm 

My shul, Etz Chaim in Manchester, recently voted to reinstitute the 
German-Jewish minhagim which, for various reasons, it dropped a few years 
ago.

I was asked to daven kabbolas Shabbos last week and took the initiative to 
daven from the shulchan (ie the almemar), not the amud at the front.

The next morning, I was informed that in Hungary (presumably Oberland), they 
would say the whole of kabbolas from the shulchan, but in Germany they would 
only say Lecha Dodi from the shulchan;  l’chu neranena was said from the 
amud.

This puzzles me.  I always understood that kabbolas Shabbos is said from the 
shulchan because it is not part of the formal seder haTefillah.  The 
recitation of both l’chu neranena and lecha dodi was instituted by the 
kabbalists in Tz’fas.  They are both additions, so why distinguish between 
the two?  I surmise that l’chu neranena is from Tehillim and therefore 
appears more traditional than lecha dodi, which is openly (if only 
metaphorically) kabbalistic in intent and meaning.

Kol tuv
Dov Kay

_________________________________________________________________
Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile. 
https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/

One final point on Pesach Sheni: there is a difference in custom as to if
and when one eats Matzah today.  According to one opinion, one should not
eat Matzah, for it may appear as if he is attempting to fulfill the Mitzvah
of Matzah in an improper time, which is a violation of the Torah's
prohibition against adding onto the 613 Mitzvos.  Others have the custom to
eat Matzah sometime during the day on the 14th, to remember that the Korbon
Pesach Sheni was brought today.  A third opinion is to eat the Matzah
tonight, i.e., the night of the 15th of Iyar, for this would be the night
that the Korban Pesach Sheni was eaten together with Matzah and Marror.
Every person should follow his custom, or his Rav's guidance, in this area.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070502/00f48014/attachment.html 

RTK writes:

> But it would be OK for a woman to perform for a non-frum 
> Jewish man, who might well be found in an opera house?   
> There are at least some Jews living in every city in the 
> world big enough to have an opera house, and it's reasonable 
> to assume that Jews -- being among the most cultured and 
> affluent people in every city -- will sometimes go to the opera.
> 
> If it's not OK for a Jewish man to hear a woman sing I don't 
> know how it can be OK for a Jewish woman to sing in a venue 
> where there is a very high probability that at least one 
> member of the audience is a Jewish man.

To understand why this would be so, you need to understand the halacha
of lifnei iver.  RZS referred to it in his post, but it may have been
difficult to follow for those who do not know the sources.  As simply as
I can, the case discussed in the gemora (see Avodah Zara 6a-b) is where
a nazir (who is forbidden to touch wine) is handed wine by somebody
else.  And the gemora there refers to two different scenarios.  The
first is one where this all takes place on the same side of the river.
That is, the nazir could just as easily have gotten up himself and taken
the wine, just that the other person has helped him.  The second case,
ie "two sides of the river", is where the wine is on the other side of a
river and that means that the nazir could not get the wine himself, he
was dependent on another person (maybe a person with a boat) to get the
wine for him.  

The comparision to the opera singer case would seem pretty
straightforward.  If this particular opera singer did not sing, somebody
else would, making it a same side of the river case.

There is a terrific summary of the issues involved in this by R' Michael
Broyde in his book, the Pursuit of Justice, which discusses halacha and
the practice of secular law (I only have an old proof, so I am reluctant
to quote page numbers as they have probably changed, but will quote some
key passages).  Of course this issue is one that can be easily faced by
a litigation lawyer.  What happens if a Jewish person comes to you and
insists that he wants to litigate against another Jewish person in the
secular courts, even though that transgresses the issur of arkos?
Assuming that you are not the only litigation lawyer in town, we are
once again in "same side of the river" territory, ie if you don't act
for him, somebody else will.  Can one take such a client?

R' Broyde summarizes the approaches amongst the rishonim as follows:

"Thus three approaches can be found with regard to aiding one who wishes
to sin.  Maimonides maintains that the biblical prohibition is always
violated by aiding.  Rabbanu Nissim (Ran) belives that biblical law is
violated only when others cannot also execute the act; Tosafot maintains
that when there are others who can - and will aid the violater or he
could act alone, neither rabbinic nor biblical law is violated."

R' Broyde goes on to say:

"The classical codifiers of the law have taken a number of approaches to
this topic.  Rabbi Yosef Karo, writing in the Shulchan Aruch, when
dicussing whether one can sell items to a non-Jew which might be used in
his (idolatrous) religious practice, apparently adopts the approach of
Maimonides (or at least Ran) and concludes that it is prohibited to aid
a person in the commission of a sin, although others will aid him if one
does not (Yorech Deah 151:1).
Rabbi Isserles (Rema) in his glosses does not agree with this position.
He quotes the position of Tosafot that when others can aid the sinner,
it is permissible for any other individual to aid him as well.
Additionally, he quotes the position of the Ran, that this is prohibited
according to rabbinic law.  He concludes:

"The tradition is in accordance with the first opinion (Tosafot); pious
people (literally, spiritually elevated people) should conduct
themselves in accordance with the second opinion (Ran)"

The classical commentary of the Shakh adds yet another rule.  He states
that when dealing with a person whom one is not obligated to prevent
sinning (footnote, ie either an apostate or a non-Jew ...) all
authorities (footnote, Ran and Tosefot) agree that if others will aid
him if the prospective facilitator does not or if he can do the whole
act himself, it is entirely permissible to aid him.  The basis of the
rabbinical prohibition to aid sinners is to separate them from sinning.
Thus according to Shakh it is permissible to aid a non-Jew or a Jew with
no fidelity to Jewish law when others can aid them, since there is no
obligation to prevent such a person from sinning.  It is only in the
case of generally observant Jews, according to the Shakh, that the two
opinions of Rabbi Isserles (Rema) are relevant.
Rabbi Ezekiel Landau adds his own insight to the opinion of Shakh.  He
states that according to Shakh, any time a person knowingly violates a
particular rule, that person is to be classified as a "Jew with no
fidelity to Jewish law" for the purposes of the prohibition to assist
this person in a violation.  Thus, according to this opinion, a lawyer
can aid even an apparently religious Jew in an improper lawsuit provided
that the religious Jew knows he is violating Jewish law."

End of quotations from R' Broyde.  Note that I have some difficulty with
this Dagul Mervava (ie the R' Landau quote) as it seems to me that if
this were so, one could never have a case of lifnei iver or the
rabbinical form with a nazir (ie the primary case in the gemora) as
surely every nazir knows that touching wine is prohibited.  But be that
as it may, the key thing is that lawyers have quite a lot to rely on if
they take on a case from a non religious Jew to sue another Jew in the
secular courts, and, it would seem by fairly easy analogy, so would an
opera singer singing in front of a non religious Jewish man in the
audience.
 
Note that this issue comes up in a whole myriad of contexts - your
husband may well face it, at least indirectly, if he sells CDs and such
to not such religious Jews - how does he know they won't play them on
shabbas?  Might he not be aiding them in that averah?  But as you can
see, there is a lot of halacha that should mean such products are not a
problem.

> --Toby Katz

And RAS writes:

> Can the same thing be said about a frum female who wants to 
> wear a bikini at the beach - it's those men looking at her 
> that are transgressing, not her?  And, since these men are at 
> the beach (where there are other women dressed in a similar 
> fashion), there's no problem with "lifnei eiver." I think we all would
agree that this would, in fact, be 
> wrong.
> 

And in fact I have heard similar arguments for allowing a woman to wear
a bikini on the beach, so I don't thing the agreement is as universal as
you think.  Of course if the beach can be seen by a religious Jew with a
proper reason for being there (eg on his way to work) then if you hold
by the Ran rather than Tosphos, there would seem to be a rabbinical
prohibition.  If the only Jews on the beach are those with no fidelity
to Jewish law, then one would have thought the same arguments ought to
apply - although again one might need to consider the extent to which
viewing erva is an issur even for non Jews.  One slight difference
though between the beach case and the opera singer case is that it is
not as though there are specific spots at which people gather to see
bikini clad women, and if one woman does not take that slot, another
will.  That is, it is always possible that a woman might turn up in a
bikini and discover that she happens to be the only woman on the beach
and that there might just not be anybody else prepared to display at the
relevant time.  However in the opera singer case it is very clear that
if this woman does not sing a particular role, somebody else will be
hired to do so, making it much more like the lawyer case referred to
above.

>  If so, how is it different than singing at the opera 
> - both are "displaying their erva"?
>

The interesting question is - where is the issur regarding "displaying
erva" if not located within lifnei iver?  As mentioned in my previous
posting, R' Getzel Ellinson learns it out of lo yireh bach ervas davar.
That works more easily for the bikini case (which is really about
seeing) than kol isha  - and really works very well for, say, a beach in
Israel (which could be understood to be machanecha).  It works less well
for a non Jewish private beach in America, say and with some difficulty
for a non Jewish opera house.  The other prohibition I cited, lo yiye
kadesh, might also be applied to a bikini wearer perhaps - if one can
argue that that is the garment of those of improper sexual behaviour.
Of course defining a woman to be a kadesha based on these types of
actions would make it much more difficult for kohanim to ever marry, so
I think that mostly poskim have shied away from such a position.

There is of course a whole literature on what it is improper to display
even when going to the bathroom and more on whether a woman can display
erva to other women, and to the extent that these areas are not
sufficiently covered by a bikini, then these discussions would be
relevant here too.  However I am not aware of any strictures upon a
woman singing in private or in front of other women so there is nothing
useful there to apply to the opera singer case.
 
> KT,
> Aryeh

Regards

Chana


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 94
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."