Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 183

Thu, 15 May 2008

• 1. Re: Education - was RAYK and the end of chol (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Re: Showing affection to children in beit k'nesset (chana@kolsassoon.org.uk)
• 3. Re: Education - was RAYK and the end of chol (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Waiting to Daven Maariv on Shavuous (Arie Folger)
• 5. Holiday In Iyar (Cantor Wolberg)
• 6. When Things Are Only MAYBE Assur (Meir Rabi)
• 7. Re: Dancing and clapping on Shabbos (Richard Wolpoe)
• 8. Re: Dancing on Shabbos (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Re: Education - was RAYK and the end of chol (Richard Wolpoe)

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:47 PM, kennethgmiller@juno.com <
kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:

>
> To me, a most telling comment is that "Neither could she be prevailed on to
> alter her ways, nor would an experienced rabbi even try." Despite the
> illogic of it, the two streams ARE compatible, in an "eilu v'eilu" kind of
> way, I suppose. The men learn their way, and the women learn their way, and
> if there are halachic differences, well, we'll muddle through somehow.
> Because that's how G-d wants it.
>
> Akiva Miller
>

A simple way of thinking about it is to view both text and minetic-masorah
as 2 valid sources sources and to investigate them both analytically.  When
they conflict you can make the usual dialectics and arrive at some kind of
synthesis

The point is to avoid such pronouncements as "text always  triumphs" or my
grandfather's custom trumps, etc.  In the extreme both can be silly.

Illustrations:
TEXT:  The Beis Yoseph says that there si a prohibition of eating milk and
FISH together.   Darchei Moshe [Rema] points out that this is a t'aus sofer.
Whether that criticism  is a fact or a very educated guess is irrelevant,
the Rema's point MUST be accounted for in the mix.

MIMETICS: One's grandfather might have slept in for minyan every year
following the first Seder.  That does not make it Halachah or even Minhag.

I have been intending to post the Aruch hashulchan's critique of custom's in
hilchos Megillah. Now the AhS is considered highly pro-mimeitc but he makes
some very  specific [harsh?] parameters as to waht minhaggim oare valid.
Rema rejects certain Minhaggim - which is why I trust his judgment when he
supports a Minhag- becayse his reaction is NOT knee-jerk but a considered
opininion.

OTOH those with sweeping opinions are harder to accept.
All Rules are flawed - including this one --smile-- [well at least the human
ones --smile--]
-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080514/133c5e70/attachment-0001.htm>

RJR wrote:

>See S"A O"C 98:1 (Rama- sfardim iirc kiss hands after an aliya )

Well it depends on your Sephardim ...

We just got back from spending Pesach in a hotel (a five star one by 
the sea, so clearly we are major contributors to the downfall of 
Orthodox Jewry as we know it).  In any event the majority of the people 
who took part were French speaking Sephardim, with the overwhelming 
majority of those being Moroccans (with I think I handful of Algerians 
and Tunisians).  After each aliya or other kibud, the man getting the 
kibud then proceeded to kiss the entire front row (plus rabbi, gabbai, 
chazzan etc) on both cheeks!  

(BTW Any form of kissing post an aliya not my husband's minhag - or 
that of his shul - although it may of course be that they have both 
become too Britishified, I can't promise it was like that in the old 
country).  

Going back to our hotel sojourn, the time it took to complete an aliya 
was independent of the fact that it took them well over two and a half 
hours on a shabbas or yom tov morning to complete Shachris and hallel - 
*completely* missing sof zman tephila!  They were, to be fair, 
extremely tuneful,  (the Morrocans are, to my mind, the most tuneful of 
the Sephardim, at least to a more Western ear) as they sang their way 
through every single one of the psukei d'zimra. 

After that first morning, my husband davened with the Ashkenazim! - 
(at least for Shabbas/Yom Tov Shachris!)

>KT
>Joel Rich
 
Regards

Chana



_______________________________
Free games from Tiscali Play - http://www.tiscali.co.uk/play

I am not touching (on list) the central issue of halachic process,
as I feel RRW and I are stuck in circles on that one.

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 09:35:54AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: I have been intending to post the Aruch hashulchan's critique of custom's in
: hilchos Megillah. Now the AhS is considered highly pro-mimeitc but he makes
: some very  specific [harsh?] parameters as to waht minhaggim oare valid.
: Rema rejects certain Minhaggim - which is why I trust his judgment when he
: supports a Minhag- becayse his reaction is NOT knee-jerk but a considered
: opininion.

The AhS isn't really "pro mimetic", or else he would assume people pasqen
by seeing what's done, not by hitting books like AhS.

Rather, he believes in the formal ("textual") authority of minhag avos.
Perhaps even using the assumption that minhag avos can be taken as
evidence of undocumented formal pesaqim (or ones that were documented,
but the teshuvah/seifer was lost). Much like historians' claims about
minhag Ashkenaz coming from a parallel mesorah to the stream that produced
the Bavli, that was less completely recorded in the midrashei halakhah
and the Y-mi.

IOW, mimeticism is knowing what a kezayis is from memory of what tatty
ate at his seider, what zeidi ate, what the rav took in shul, etc...
Textual use of minhag avos is defending RCN's kezayis over the CI's
because those people must have relied on something.

Which is why the bulk of the AhS is finding textual support of pesaqim,
even when it's clear that the conclusion is overwhelmingly whatever was
the usual practice in Litta.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 24th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507        taking control result in balance and harmony?

RYL wrote:
> Many may be surprised to learn that it was not the practice in the
> Ashkenazic world in the time of the Rishonim to wait to daven Maariv.
> Also, it was not the practice of some Achronim.

It is still not the minhag of real Ashkenaz kehillaus. And we have no 
intention of changing our practice.

Kol tuv,

-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

If you want to have some fun, ask some of your friends what Biblical  
holiday
occurs in Iyar.
I wonder what percentage will be able to tell you (without looking it  
up).
ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080514/cb3e9834/attachment-0001.htm>

 

It is noted by the Acharonim that when the Gemara discusses questions to do
with transfer of non-Kosher flavour, there is no suggestion that a
connoisseur be employed to provide an expert opinion and determine the
Halachic rule. For example, in the Gemara's debate if soaking is like
cooking or if salting is like cooking, it is not suggested that we run a
series of tests to determine if it is or is not so.

Why not?

And perhaps we can ask (because I don't think this question is asked by the
Rishonim or Acharonim) how did each side of the debate come to their
conclusion. It's the old (general) question, how can we have a debate in the
Gemara about matters of verifiable fact?

It is therefore proposed that it is not absolutely known if the flavour has
or has not been transferred. Sometimes it does and sometimes it does not. We
can verify this from the Halacha that a single Kezayis lowered consecutively
into even 1000000 separate boiling pots each of 59 Kezaysim of Kosher foods
will render all the pots non-Kosher. But how many Kezaysim of non-Kosher
flavour are in the one Kezayis? They could not possibly all be non-Kosher.

So it must be that we actually don't know where the flavour has been
transferred. In the above mentioned 1000000 pots would it not be appropriate
to say that even if there is in fact one pot which is not-Kosher (because we
may have had only a fraction of the Kezayis exuded into several pots - in
which case all the pots are K) it is anyway Battel in the majority of the
other pots that must be Kosher?

Furthermore, does this not make all theses situations into cases of Safek -
doubt which must be treated differently than cases of Vaday - certainty?

Just imagine we have one Kezayis in our hand which is chopped into several
pieces. Before us are 10 pots. With our eyes closed or the lights off the
Kezayis handful is (inadvertently) thrown towards the nest of 10 pots. We
verify that all the pieces fell into the pot/s, i.e. none are found on the
floor. Are all the pots Kosher, none?

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080515/2b609e10/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Prof. Levine <llevine@stevens.edu> wrote:

>  Please see the article "Clapping and Dancing on Shabbos" at
> http://www.cckollel.org/html/parsha/vayikra/shemini5763.html
>
> The author, Rabbi Weinrib, learns full time in the [Chicago Community]
> Kollel.
>
>  Yitzchok Levine
>

[As an aside R' Yerucham Levovitz [Daas Torah Chaya Sora 24-3] offers a
> fabulous insight as to why we see some of the decrees of Chazal as a bit
> farfetched. He explains that unfortunately we do not fully appreciate the
> severity of a sin and how detrimental it is to us. If we would only realize
> how serious sins are, we would fully understand why it was necessary to
> place so many fences around them. We can compare it to a train approaching a
> busy thoroughfare. Before it arrives, there are signs, flashing lights, and
> descending gates, which are there well before the train arrives, and go up
> only after there is no chance of any damage being done. Since the
> consequences of being struck by a speeding train are so severe, the more
> precautions there are, the better. How much more so is a sin, which is so
> damaging to our body and soul.  The Sages in their infinite wisdom saw it as
> necessary to place many safeguards around sin.]
>

BUT
I heard a Rabbi who is a Phd explain this w/o all of the frumkeit
implications

In places like Spain dances used to fabricate home-made castinets whilst
dancing, it was  the WAY they danced to make a rhythmic sound with a
home-made instrument - while in France no one danced with castinest So
Tsaofos indeed saw this G'zeira as irrelevant.

I am not familiar with R. Yerucham Levvovitz but my rebbe was R. Yerucham
Gorleick and he warned us NOT to get caught up with "frum" torah. it is nice
to make such platitudes about he spiirtuality re: a g'zeira, but it would be
even better to get the facts and dynamics straight.  Tio wit - since in
Spanish-like societies any impomptu dance music brought about homemade
instruments the g'zeria may have NEVER been far-fetched at all but or a
REACH rather it was about people REACHING for something to bang. Ever notice
people tapping on the table while singing zmiros?  Some even do it [ON
SHABBOS!] with cutlery.   Or iow  People have been using primiitve bongo
drums for centuries.  So tis gz'eira is about a very real issue of Tikkun
Maneh.

Secondly, according to Tosafos would it also be permitted to actually play
> musical instruments as well? The consensus of the Poskim is that even
> according to Tosafos, only clapping and dancing would be permitted, and not
> the playing of actual instruments. [See Shut Shaar Ephraim 36 Eliyahu Raba
> O.H. 339-1 Biur Halacha ibid s.v. ulisspek]


I agree that POSKIM make this hilluk. But if you reject the authority of
Poskim and go back to the gmara for p'sak - then their read is into the din
is only informational and not normative.  C's view it just so, iow that the
later poskim are not normative and are only suggesting a hilluk, but that
the original takkana is after all one and the same.  And although it MIGHT
be true that Tsoafos would buy this hilluk  - it is aftera all not
provable!  and so in the case of honoring Shabbos by a kumsitz the sfeik
derabban bimkom mitzva is set aside.  This would imply OTOH, playing
instruments on Shabbos for  entertainment and NOT as part of the service
would indeed be assur even from a "C" level of Halachah!

===================================================================
Just a footnote. My friend from Amsterdam told me that at one time hakafos
were permitted in Amsterdam  but they reneged after a few generations of it
being permited -  because of the abuses of the Halachos against dancing on
YT [with apologies to Rav Hai Gaon]

From what I see lately [having vacated the Heights circa 2006], I get the
impression is that only Yekkes [and others of a like-mind]  that take these
Halachos seriously -  while it seems others are willing to "play games" for
some perceived "greater good".

[AFAIK re: NCSY a hora'as sho'oh was made by asking poskim.]

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080515/00c7a40f/attachment.htm>

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> BTW, pesaq doesn't always go to the most brilliant. When was the last
> time you heard that we pasqened like the Rogotchover on something? Not
> that I would sayu there the issue was a lack of yir'as Shamayim as much
> as a lack of contact with nispasheit bekhol Yisrael.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger
>


True but [at least until the advent of the MB ]when was the last time anyone
cited the poseik's yira's Shamayyim as a reason to follow him?

JR:

> The cognitive dissonance comes when the answer is "sorry, my hands are
> tied" rather than "here's why I don't think the ratzon haborei is served"
>

Stole my thunder
If  Micha's model of fuzzy is good, then feminists would have far more
resonance in claiming it is a form of misogyny for poskim to feel
constrained from solving the Aguna issue. OTOH, if you say precedent IS
BINDING, then poskim would have had an objective reason for not complyingto
Aguanh advocates all along.  That is part of my mah nafsahch, not that p'sak
is Boolean per se, but that either precedence is binding or it isn't.   If
it isn't, or even if ti is only PARTIALLY binding then then eis la'asos!
And  poskim would have more than yir'as Shamayyim impelling them to free
agunos, it would be tsa'ar ba'alei Chayyim of the highest order!



-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080515/276563c6/attachment.htm>

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 09:35:54AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> : I have been intending to post the Aruch hashulchan's critique of custom's
> in
> : hilchos Megillah. Now the AhS is considered highly pro-mimeitc but he
> makes
> : some very  specific [harsh?] parameters as to waht minhaggim oare valid.
> : Rema rejects certain Minhaggim - which is why I trust his judgment when
> he
> : supports a Minhag- becayse his reaction is NOT knee-jerk but a considered
> : opininion.
>
> The AhS isn't really "pro mimetic", or else he would assume people pasqen
> by seeing what's done, not by hitting books like AhS.
>
> Rather, he believes in the formal ("textual") authority of minhag avos.
> Perhaps even using the assumption that minhag avos can be taken as
> evidence of undocumented formal pesaqim (or ones that were documented,
> but the teshuvah/seifer was lost). Much like historians' claims about
> minhag Ashkenaz coming from a parallel mesorah to the stream that produced
> the Bavli, that was less completely recorded in the midrashei halakhah
> and the Y-mi.
>
> IOW, mimeticism is knowing what a kezayis is from memory of what tatty
> ate at his seider, what zeidi ate, what the rav took in shul, etc...
> Textual use of minhag avos is defending RCN's kezayis over the CI's
> because those people must have relied on something.
>
> Which is why the bulk of the AhS is finding textual support of pesaqim,


I am not sure precisely what you mean - iow this is fuzzy to me - but this
does not appear to be based upon any hard statistical evidence...


>
> even when it's clear that the conclusion is overwhelmingly whatever was
> the usual practice in Litta.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>

I mroe or less concur with this re: AhS but I do not quite feel he is more
Litvish Centric than the  MB is Mussar-Centric.

Actuallyin framing the issues, the AhS is often Rambam-Centric and he often
drills down from the Rambam into the salient debates.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080515/52bd0c0a/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 183
***************************************

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..."