Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 194

Sun, 16 Sep 2007

• 1. Re: shofar & guf naki (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 2. Re: Trivia Question - What Friday Nights have no Shalom Zachor? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: Selichos - Especially before Midnight (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Re: Hataras nedarim with a shaliach (T613K@aol.com)
• 5. Re: shofar & guf naki (Marty Bluke)
• 6. Kosel vs. Shul (Jonathan Baker)
• 7. Re: Selichos - Especially before Midnight (Arie Folger)
• 8. Hataras Nedarim for one's wife (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 9. Kapporos, rationalism and the titles of the Simanim in the Shulhan Aruch (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 10. Re: Kosel vs. Shul (Doron Beckerman)
• 11. Re: lifnei iver/kanaus (Chana Luntz)
• 12. Re: lifnei iver/kanaus (Doron Beckerman)

R' Daniel Eidensohn asked:
> Does the mitzva of hearing shofar require guf naki. This
> question involves someone with colitis. If it doesn't can
> one fulfill it in a bathroom?

Rac Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (in Halichos Shlomo 2:17) says this: "One who hears the sound of the shofar in a place which is not clean, if there's no possiblity of hearing it afterward elsewhere, he is allowed (reshai) to have kavana to be yotzay with this hearing."

From the lengthy footnotes, it seems that the problem is that having kavana for the mitzva is a form of thinking divrei Torah.

Akiva Miller

On 9/12/07, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
>
> Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>
> > There are several Friday nights that [at least virtually] never have a
> > Shalom Zachor
>
> Obviously Yom Kippur and the Seder night.  I can't think of any others.
>
> BTW, it seems from Rashi on Vayikra 26:4 (and Taanis 23a) that in his
> time and place they didn't have sholom zochors.
>
> --
> Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
> zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
>                                                   - Clarence Thomas
>

Correct!
And on Shabbos Hazon, Breuer's has a minhag of not announcing the Zachor,
atlhough they do have them.

As to the origin of "Shalom Zachar"  I have no idea!
-- 
Kesiva vaChasima Tova
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070915/168d5973/attachment.htm 

On 9/12/07, David Riceman <driceman@att.net> wrote:
>
> Marty Bluke wrote:
> > It is hard to go against all the modern day poskim.
> >
> >
> When I was young and innocent I was taught that saying selichos in the
> evening was a "yekkishe minhag", but not "our" (eastern European
> Bostonian) minhag.  I wonder whether all of these poskim are complaining
> about someone from elsewhere changing his custom, rather than flat out
> prohibiting the custom of an ancient and honorable Jewish community.
> Notably none of the poskim you cite are German.
>
> David Riceman
> _______________________________________________
>

I don't know the issue of whether this is yekkishe. FWIW Breue's says
Seilhos on the FIRST day in the early morning NOT at midnight!

What DOES make sense to me is that if you removed ALL Qabblistic sources
there is AFAIK zero Halachic considerations for not saying Selichos earlier
than Midnight.

And possibly this is what is meant by Yekkishe, Since Yeke's tend to NOT
factor Qabblah into their Litrugical  considerations in general. [I hve no
evidence just a good hunch]

Maybe R. Michael Poppers or someone else has more insight on this matter.


-- 
Kesiva vaChasima Tova
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070915/9a081fab/attachment.html 

 
 
RGD wrote:

>>In my "foursome" this morning, I was the only one who did NOT  say that I 
was a shaliach for my wife for hatara/mesiras moda'ah.  I never  heard of this 
and don't see how this works, aside from my assumption that said  wives never 
appointed them shelichim for the  purpose.<<

>>>>>
So did your wife go to shul herself for hataras nedarim -- and if so, was  
she the only woman there?  Or did she just not do hataras nedarim?
 
I have a vague thought that if a husband can invalidate his wife's nedarim  
he is ipso facto her shaliach for hataras nedarim, but I don't pretend I really 
 know what I'm talking about.  I only know that I am unaware of women going  
to shul or to the rabbi on erev RH for hataras nedarim.  Having just  
celebrated my 30th wedding anniversary, I guess I am 30 years late asking these  
questions.  You should have posted a week ago.




--Toby  Katz
=============




************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070916/104e16eb/attachment.htm 

R' Daniel Eidensohn asked:
<Does the mitzva of hearing shofar require guf naki?

The Biur Halacha in Siman 588 (Shama tes tekios) discusses this issue,
he is mistapek and then he quotes a Mateh Efraim that b'dieved you are
yotze.

RSZA in Halichos Shlomo (perek 2 sif 17) is matir if you have no alternative.

From: "Doron Beckerman" <beck072@gmail.com>
 
> My understanding of the Maala of davening at the Kosel vs. other places is
> "Shechinah Lo Zazah Misham (as the Medrash Shir Hashirim says on the Passuk
> of Hinei Omed Achar Kosleinu). If there is an intensified presence of the
> Shechinah, that makes it a place where it is better to daven, perhaps in the
> sense of not requiring Malachim to bring the Tefillos to Hashem, similar to
> a Choleh (Yoreh Deah 335:5) where the Shechinah is L'Maala Meraishosav

As I continue to question almost everything written by this rav who has my
ancestral name...

The Midrash may say that.  The Gemara in Megillah 29a, quoted by Rashi
in Dt 30:3 "veshav vekabetz'cha" also says the Shechinah is in exile with
the rest of us, so the Kosel or the Ramban shul shouldn't make any difference:
it's all outside the Haram es-Sharif.

That's all assuming that God's essence has a physical location that is not
also every other physical location.  As long as we can assume such a situation
is not only possible but necessary, what's to stop us from assuming that God's
essence was clothed in a body for 33 years, 2000 years ago?

These statements about the physical location of the Shechinah can't
be meant literally, they must be saying something else.

Actually, the Midrash in Shir Hashirim Rabbah 2:9 says nothing of the
kind, only that the Western and Southern Walls would never be destroyed,
per Divine promise.  I wonder if that's really the case?  E.g., why 
davka those two?  The north and east walls of the Temple enclosure are just
as much in existence today as they were when Herod expanded them 2050 years
ago.  Maybe the South and West Walls of the Beis Hamikdash itself were still
standing 1600 years ago?

Midrash Rabbah 11:2 also explicates the verse, and gives as the reason
for the Western Wall not being destroyed (not mentioning the Chuldah Gates
this time) is that the Shechinah is in the West.  Sounds pretty symbolic
to me, not that I know what idea it's representing, other than that the 
Kodesh Hakodoshim was in the West end of the Temple building.  In which
case, its literal interpretation is demonstrably false, no?  Because the
West end of the Temple Building is gone, just like all the other sides.

So I don't see the Midrash saying what R' Beckerman (and various online
sources) claim it does - evidently some lacuna in my understanding.

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

RDRiceman wrote:
> When I was young and innocent I was taught that saying selichos in the
> evening was a "yekkishe minhag", but not "our" (eastern European
> Bostonian) minhag. ?I wonder whether all of these poskim are complaining
> about someone from elsewhere changing his custom, rather than flat out
> prohibiting the custom of an ancient and honorable Jewish community. ?
> Notably none of the poskim you cite are German.

Repeat after me: saying selichos in the evening is not a Jeckishe minhog. We 
say selichos [at 6:15] in the morning even on the first day, despite it being 
Sunday.

AFAIK, we have been doing this for over 200 years in our kehilloh, and that 
must have been taken over from even older Ashkenaz communities.

Whoever invented this novel idea of saying selichos right after the TV show, 
before the late night show, wasn't trying to observe minhog Ashkenaz, AFAIK.

While I do not swallow minhog Ashkenaz hook, sink and barrel, preferring 
instead to analyze it. It is much of the time rooted in most ancient pisqei 
halakhah - "from before the standardization *on* the Bavli," as RRW is wont 
to say. For some reason not connected to minhog Ashkenaz, but very much 
connected to the religious disconnectedness of a large number of our brethren 
since the 19th century, Jeckes are blamed for anything not halakhically 
acceptable. This is unjustified. Blame Reform, blame the various kofrim 
veapiqorsim, messissim umedi'him our people has unfortunately endured in the 
last 200 years, but do not blame the Jeckes.

Chassieme tauwoh,
-- 
(Rabbi) Arie Folger, Israelitische Gemeinde Basel
happily embracing the old, well worn tradition of our kehilloh,
happily learning minhog Ashkenaz, 
who-is-nonetheless-half-Galicianer-half-Moroccan
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:33:45 -0700 Gershon Dubin wrote:

> In my "foursome" this morning, I was the only one who did NOT say that I was a shaliach for my wife for hatara/mesiras moda'ah.  I never heard of this and don't see how this works, aside from my assumption that said wives never appointed them shelichim for the purpose.
> 
> If they did, could they?

Yes.  Shulhan Aruch YD 234:56.
 
> Gershon

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 07:47:07 -0700 Yitzchok Levine wrote:

> <http://www.forward.com/articles/11506/>"Orthodox Call on Sinners To 
> Give Chickens a Fairer Shake - Forward.com"

> Yitzchok Levine 

From the Forward article:

> The kapparot ceremony is one of the more colorful elements of the High Holy Days but one of the most historically fraught. Maimonides and later Joseph Caro, author of the authoritative code of Jewish law, both claimed that kapparot had its roots in pagan ritual and should be abandoned by religious Jews.

This is apparently carelessness or ignorance on the Forward's part; as
far as I know, the Rambam never mentions the custom of Kapporos at
all.  Perhaps the writer confused Nahmanides with Maimonides; the
Poskim do indeed cite Ramban as objecting to
the custom.

I anticipate the indignant protests of contemporary rationalists: "But
of course the Rambam unequivocally rejected all such superstitious
practices rooted in folk religion!"  First, even if we concede that the
Rambam would have probably discouraged the practice had he actually
heard of it and written anything about it, it is nevertheless
irresponsibly inaccurate to baldly assert that he "claimed that
kapparot had its roots in pagan ritual and should be abandoned by
religious Jews".

Morever, I do not consider it at all certain that the Rambam would have
necessarily opposed the practice, which after all appears in the Geonic
literature [1].  The Meiri, an enthusiastic albeit moderate rationalist
and Maimonidean, although he does cite the practice's opponents,
is nevertheless willing to interpret the custom in an impeccably
rationalistic manner [2].

Incidentally, a friend once told me that Dr. S. Z. Leiman disparaged
the Friedman Shulhan Aruch for omitting from the title of OH 605 the
words "minhag shtus hu", which were apparently present in all the
earlier editions of the SA but omitted from the later ones.  I finally
checked for myself; they do indeed omit the words from their main text,
but they mention the history in a note.  They also cite a responsum of
the Shemesh Zedakkah [3] who cites the Maharash Abuhab as claiming a
tradition that those words were written by the editors, not by R. Yosef
Karo himself.  It isn't completely clear whether he means that none of
the Siman titles were written by RYK, or that this one specifically was
embellished by a zealous anti-kapporos partisan.  The Friedman editors
also cite a further discussion of these issues in the Bris Ya'akov
(Sofer) [4].

[0] see Beis Yosef OH 605
[1] ibid.
[2] see Hibbur Ha'Teshuvah Meishiv Nefesh Ma'mar II Perek 8
[3] OH #23 
[4] #41 note 4.  The author is a grandson of the Kaf Ha'haim.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat



Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

In response to R' Jonathan Baker,

1) See Shmos Rabba 2:2 and Tanchuma Shmos 10, among other sources, for the
phrase that the Shechinah has not departed from the Kosel based on the
Passuk in Shir HaShirim.

2) Regarding what the meaning of the Shechinah being there and everywhere
else as well, two points. Firstly, the idea that there is a more intense
presence of the Shechinah in particular places/times/situations appears in
too many sources to enumerate. As I mentioned, by a Choleh, in Shul, in the
Beis HaMikdash, on Har Sinai, in the Mishkan, a Minyan, et al. Secondly, the
Torash HaMinchah (by a Talmid of the Rashba) in Parshas Pekudei explains
that the Shechinah which is present in other places other than the Kosel is
like the sun which has rays which shine toward other places. The 'sun' of
the Shechinah is at the Kosel.

3) Regarding the issue of the Kosel being part of the Beis HaMikdash/ Har
Habayis, see Igros Moshe YD 4:63:(11)

4) Regarding the idea that the intensified presence of the Shechinah makes
it a better place for Tefilla, I found support for this in  the Tzitz
Eliezer 10:1:(80-81). Fascinating material!

Gmar Chasimah Tovah, cousin!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070916/6ff558eb/attachment.html 

RAB writes:
> 
> Once you agree that either of these scenarios are acceptable, 
> if not for the technicalities of where one is less of a 
> certainty than the other, and we have the principle shelo 
> yehei momono choviv migufo, than we must ask why a teacher 
> cannot confiscate a pupil's property based on this principle, 
> if he can indeed hit him.

This is why, when RDB first raised the question of rodef, I assumed that
this was where he was going, precisely because of this explicit
statement in the Shulchan Aruch.  That is why I couldn't understand why
he was trying to raise a case of rodef from some far fetched scenario,
when there was a realistic one paskened right there in Shulchan Aruch,
with some helpful meforshim raising the link between chavla and gezel
right there (albeit the other way around).  But he rejected that example
as helping him.  I still think it helps him as much as some other
unrealistic scenario, and that the same issues get raised.  

But once you analyse the case brought in the Shulchan Aruch (and this
goes for any case involving rodef), it seems to me that there is a
striking difference between a rodef case and the teacher case.  In the
rodef case one is dealing with pikuach nefesh.  And we know as a general
principle that all issurim except those that are yarog v'al yavo are
doche in a pikuach nefesh case.  It is thus obvious that any issur of
gezela (if such a scenario could be constructed) as well a chavla would
be doche to save an innocent life, unless of course you hold the
position (which, as RDB has indicated, has been widely rejected by the
majority of the rishonim and achronim) that gezela is yarog v'al yavor.
It thus would seem that the fundamental mindset one needs to have is to
assess what best will prevent the taking of an innocent life, rather
than do a mindset that requires weighing of the nature of one issur
versus another.  It is not a genuine case of a kal v'chomer from one
issur to the next, it is a case of all issurim being doche to pikuach
nefesh.

In the teacher case, we are not generally considered to be dealing with
pikuach nefesh.  It is just that it is possible that in the course of
hitting a talmid, the teacher might come to kill him.  One has to
consider such a possibility reasonably remote - and that this is
precisely why the teacher is indeed patur from going into galus.  It is
not just that he is doing something mutar (although he may well have
ended up violating pen yosif), but that the consequences (ie death) are
not reasonably forseeable or particularly expected, and, of course,
completely unintended.  However, taking away the talmid's property would
seem, as per the definition of gezela, to be straight out stealing.  And
the teacher by doing so would seem to be intending to do the issur of
stealing (in a way that he never intended to kill).  So you need to ask
the question, one what basis can one override the issur of gezel?  This
is standard halachic analysis - gezela is a lo ta'aseh, what overrules a
lo ta'aseh?  Pikuach nefesh is clearly one such case.  Arguably a
mitzvas aseh might do so - but the mitzvah of chinnuch is derabanan, so
it is hard to see how you can override a lo ta'aseh on the basis of a
d'rabbanan.  

 Perhaps we can differentiate 
> between where the rodeif is a killer, thus since he has 
> forfeited his life, his property is undoubtedly worth less, 
> and our case where the pupil has forfeited his right to a 
> beating. Perhaps his property is more valuable to him. For a 
> proof, see pesachim 25a: Rebbi Eliezer says why does the 
> Torah say.. uvchol meodecha.. if there is someone whose money 
> is more precious to him than his body..

But the point that Rav Henkin makes is that we have here an issur lo
ta'aseh of stealing.  Just because you are specifically permitted to hit
in this context, does not mean that you are permitted to steal -
regardless of what the person might regard as more valuable, his
property or his body [as an aside if you apply this reference in
pesachim 25a in the way you appear to want to, then should you not also
say that all of the punishments of the Torah that relate to the body
should perhaps be switched in the case of somebody who values his money
more than his body, and similarly perhaps all of the fines in the Torah
should be switched in relation to somebody who values his body more than
his money?].  

And I confess that the fundamental point that Rav Henkin appears to be
making seems very valid to me - if we do not have a source specifically
allowing for a kal v'chomer, on what basis can we intuit it?  Because
gezel seems light in our eyes (that is what we are really saying by
means of the kal v'chomer, isn't it)?  We do not, as a general rule,
assume that because something is permitted in a particular context where
it is otherwise forbidden (eg doing a bris on the eighth day even though
it is shabbas), everything else is therefore permitted.  If you were to
run a kal v'chomer in this context would you not say - since we can push
aside shabbas (an issur punishable by misas beis din) to do a bris,
surely we can push aside the issur of gezela and steal in order to do a
bris?  Or, for that matter - if we can push aside the issur of gezel for
the mitzvah of chinuch of a talmid, why cannot we push aside the issur
of gezel so that the rav can take the talmid's lulav so as to fulfil his
mitzvah with it -both only involving the taking for a very short time?
Why is this different?

> KvCT
> 
> Akiva

Gmar Tov

Chana

RnCL writes, regarding Rodef:

 >>  It is not a genuine case of a kal v'chomer from one
> issur to the next, it is a case of all issurim being doche to pikuach
> nefesh. <<


But, if the saving of the victim will be accomplished equally effectively by
killing the Rodef or having him lose a limb, we MUST aim for his limb. I am
suggesting that in a case of equal effectiveness in stopping the rodef,
faced with a choice of having him lose a limb or lose money, the Shelo Yehei
Gufo Chaviv MiMamono is obvious. I think we would be horrified if someone
chose to permanently maim a Rodef when he had the equally effective option
of taking his property.



>>  If you were to
> run a kal v'chomer in this context would you not say - since we can push
> aside shabbas (an issur punishable by misas beis din) to do a bris,
> surely we can push aside the issur of gezela and steal in order to do a
> bris?  Or, for that matter - if we can push aside the issur of gezel for
> the mitzvah of chinuch of a talmid, why cannot we push aside the issur
> of gezel so that the rav can take the talmid's lulav so as to fulfil his
> mitzvah with it -both only involving the taking for a very short time?
> Why is this different? <<



The issue is not a Kal VaChomer in that sense. The issue is, starkly, if the
Torah allows Reuven to deprive Shimon, forever, of his arms, legs, eyes,
ears, tongue, and teeth,  (which are certainly Shimon's 'property'!), then
it follows that he can deprive him of 3 dollars in pursuit of that same
overrriding goal, Shelo Yehei Mamono Chaviv Migufo. It makes no sense that I
can take away the use of a child's hand for two weeks in the interest of
Chinuch, but I can't take away his keychain. Because to whatever extent his
personal rights to the use of that keychain bar me from taking it, his
personal rights to the use of his hand are more intrinsic, and I should be
barred from taking that away from him.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070916/836f69b0/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 194
***************************************

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..."