Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 391

Wed, 19 Nov 2008

• 1. Re: Eruvin in Pre-War Europe: An Eyewitness Account (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: a troubling halacha (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Re: a troubling halacha (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: praying with a minyan on an airplane (T6...@aol.com)
• 5. Re: Some thoughts on Shemonah Perakim (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 6. Re: Eruvin in Pre-War Europe: An Eyewitness Account (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 7. Re: praying with a minyan on an airplane (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: Sephardi-ism: some food for thought (Chana Luntz)
• 9. Subject: Re: a troubling halacha (Danny Schoemann)
• 10. Re: Sephardi-ism: some food for thought (Michael Poppers)

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:03:57PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> :                                                     Shlomo Hamelech's
> : gezerah, and the bracha that Chazal instituted, have nothing to do with
> : turning a reshut harabim or a karmelit into a reshut hayachid.  They
> : are entirely concerned with carrying in a shared reshut hayachid, and
> : turning a shared RHY into a private RHY....
> 
> Since hapeh she'asar hu hapeh shehitir, (the same beis din that was
> gozeir against carrying in a karmelis invented eiruv),

Was it the same BD?

> I think it would
> be more accurate to frame it not so much as an eiruv is a matir as much
> as an eiruv-surrounded karmelis never had an issur to begin with.

Again, while we speak today of the mechitzot as an "eruv", that is
*not* what is meant when we talk about Shlomo instituting eruvin.
There is no such thing as an eruv-surrounded karmelis, because an
eruv can't surround anything; it can only exist in a RHY, however
that was created.


> Halakhah kedivrei hameiqil be'eruvin.

Does that include hekef mechitzot?  AIUI it only applies to eruvin
themselves.


> In fact, the presence of this rule WRT eiruvin (and perhaps agunah
> derabbanan, hefseid meruba and a few other cases)

And, to bring in another thread, aveilus.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
z...@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

 
 
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com"  <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
>>Okay, here's my guess: Could it be  that this halacha is based on the 
presumption that people would prefer to  observe the relatively easy halachos of 
delayed information, and that they did  not want to observe the relatively 
difficult halachos of timely  information?

If so, then the next question is: What changed? Why do we  prefer the full 
burden of the timely-information halachos? It can't be because  of the general 
trend towards stricter halachos, can it?<<

Akiva  Miller
 
 


>>>>>
Perhaps it was because premature death was so common that people would  have 
been constantly sitting shiva for parents, sibling and r'l children in the  
old days.  





--Toby Katz
=============
"If you  don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; 
if you do read the newspaper  you are misinformed." 
-- Mark Twain
Read *Jewish World Review* at _http://jewishworldreview.com/_ 
(http://jewishworldreview.com/)   




**************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news & 
more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?r
edir=htt
p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081118/687d8399/attachment-0001.htm>

RAM writes:

> I really can't imagine that modern communications are the cause of these
> changes. Halacha does prescribe certain brachos to be said when close
> relatives or friends see each other after being out of touch for a long
> time. But those cases were rare. The common case was that people *were* in
> communication with their relatives.

I don't think you are right here.  I think communication was often sporadic
at best.  Even your assumption that the postal system worked is something
relatively recent (last couple of hundred years).  Before that I do not
believe it was anything like that reliable.  People basically remade their
lives with only extremely limited communication with where they had come
from.  Of course, the situation when there was war made that even worse, and
of course the Shoah even worse - but I would point out that my grandfather
never ever knew when or even if his parents passed away (when my father and
I looked back on it, after I had gone to Lithuania and found the ghetto
records with my great grandmother and two cousins of my father on them, and
the information that the most likely scenario was that my great grandfather
and my father's uncle, sister-in-law etc were killed at the shooting pits
when the Nazis first invaded, we realised that there was almost a conspiracy
of silence.  When I had conversations with my grandfather, somehow it was as
though the Lithuania he had left still lived, somehow, and somehow nobody
put two and two together - I even dare say, nobody would permit themselves
to put two and two together, until after he passed away).

But I think even more critical than the advent of the telephone and the
ability to transmit instantaneous news is the advent of the aeroplane.

One of the things that was very clear to me as an observer of my husband
sitting shiva, is that there were two things that were particularly
emotionally important - a) he sat shiva with his brothers and his uncle (and
in the case of sitting for his father, with his mother) all together in the
same house; b) he sat shiva within a community who knew not only him but his
parents, so that many of the people who came to the shiva did not come so
much because they knew him, but because they knew his parents and wanted to
pay their respects (and were able to tell him wonderful things about them).

Now in the case of my husband, his immediate family all live within a short
distance of each other.  BUT the same thing was true when my mother sat
shiva.  a) She sat shiva with her two siblings and b) she sat in a community
that knew her parents.  And that was only possible because of the aeroplane.
Because my mother, my uncle and my aunt live on *three different continents*
and yet when the news came through, my mother and my aunt jumped on a plane
and were there in time for the levaya.  Yes it was the telephone that
enabled that to happen, but it was the aeroplane that meant that they sat as
a family.

Similarly RET when discussing his mother and how important it was for her to
be told, made a very telling comment - he described her distress if she had
not been able to sit shiva *with the rest of the family*.  Because, today,
being told means as a consequence, that unless one is unwell or
incapacitated (or one is caring for someone who is), then one can join the
mourning community that is found in the shiva house and receive comfort from
the community of which the niftar was a part.

But this was not true even within living memory.  If my Lithuanian born
grandparents in South Africa had found out that they had lost a parent in
Lithuania - even were it possible for the news to travel within the 30 days
to make it a shemua karova (and even pre Shoah), there is no way they would
have been able to get to Lithuania to sit shiva.  Even when my parents went
to Australia from South Africa - they went by boat and it took six weeks to
travel (and a day to get connected on the telephone, you would receive a
call in the morning from the operator telling you to expect a call in the
evening).

But because news was so sporadic, and because when you left you left, and
you built a new and different life where you were, I think that aveilus
would be much more disruptive and less therapeutic - sitting shiva alone
without a single person who really had any understanding of what you had
lost.  If my mother had lost a parent in those early days, there would have
been nobody in Australia who would have known that parent to offer comfort
except my father (and he did not know them well), and she would not have
been able to receive any sort of comfort from mourning together with her
brother and sister.  I can well see the logic, in that case, of not
necessarily imposing the full burden of aveilus on her then, whereas it
seems to me inconceivable that she should have been deprived the opportunity
to sit shiva with her brother and sister in South Africa when in fact her
parents pass away a few years ago.  That to me is the difference.  That
today anybody can afford to, and obtain a ticket and fly anywhere any the
world within the space of a day pretty much at most.  It changes a
tremendous amount.

> Akiva Miller

Regards

Chana

 
 
From: "Eli Turkel" <elitur...@gmail.com>
>>In particular  R. P.C. Sheinberg rules that one is not allowed to waken a
fellow passenger  in order to get to one's tallit and  tefillin.<<






>>>>>
It seems to me that this is a separate issue from davening with a  minyan.  
You need your tallis and tefillin to daven Shacharis even without  a minyan.  
Or is he saying that you should daven Shacharis at your seat  without tallis 
and tefillin (if your seatmate is sleeping), and put on tefillin  later?



--Toby Katz
=============
"If you don't read the  newspaper you are uninformed; 
if you do read the newspaper you are  misinformed." 
-- Mark Twain
Read *Jewish World Review* at _http://jewishworldreview.com/_ 
(http://jewishworldreview.com/)   




**************Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news & 
more!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212774565x1200812037/aol?r
edir=htt
p://toolbar.aol.com/moviefone/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081118/5e7efa7f/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:10:13 -0500
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 10:38:56PM -0500, Yitzhak Grossman pointed us to
> <http://bdl.freehostia.com/2008/11/06/two-c
> hief-rabbis-on-rabbinic-wills-and-halachic-ways/> (<http://tinyurl.com/5sl3hy>)
> from the blog "Bein Din Ladin":

...

> About the title of the post... "Two Chief Rabbis On Rabbinic Wills
> And Halachic Ways" This is somewhat misleeding. The idiom it refers to
> was coined by someone who wanted to imply that there is always a way,
> when there is will. His discussion is of whether rabbinic will should
> be to seek a way to push deadbeat dads to supporting their children. Not
> whether such seeking must perforce succeed.

It is not misleading.  It is indeed a nod in the direction of Ms.
Greenberg, but not an endorsement of her view, whatever exactly that
might be.  It is merely an admittedly provocative challenge to the
reader to carefully consider the relationship between Rabbinic wills and
Halachic ways.  I did not claim that the former necessarily, always, or
even usually or usually implies the latter.

> There are cases (as I recently noted WRT eiruv), where there are explict
> exceptions spelled out by Chazal. Such as an agundah derabanan, eg a
> usual case of mei'ever layam. So this:
> : Rav Shlomoh Yosef Zevin's analysis of Rav Yitzhak Elhanan Spektor's character
> : and its impact on his Agunah decisions:
> doesn't LAD seem to speak to the general rule. Rather, Chazal weren't
> gozerin in a way that maximized pain on women. And therefore one needn't
> find a resolution between that and R' Uzziel's point, R' Zevin's analysis
> is about one of the few exceptional cases.

A careful reading of the Zevin quote reveals that a) he is
referring to Rav Spektor's attitude toward Psak in general, and he
only cites Agunah as a particularly striking example and b) he refers
explicitly to a much broader spectrum of Agunah than "Agunah
Me'd'rabbanan" and includes, IIUC, those that are certainly Me'd'oraisa.

> The blogger's distinction between BALM and BALC, that R' Uzziel would
> seek qulah in the former but not in cases of "vedal lo sehader berivo",
> "ein merachamim badin", is unconvincing. It doesn't fit the quoted words,
> where R' Uzziel waxes on at length about the job of the Sanhedrin and
> subsequent poseqim to find amitah shel Torah. Nothing about judging
> between people fairly.

"Nothing about judging people fairly" - this is just incorrect.  The
very paragraph that begins "Sanhedrei gedolah" refers to ba'alei din,
and applies the verse "Arur make re'ehi ba'seser" to perjuring
litigants.  Earlier, he cites the verses "ve'dal lo se'hedar
be'rivo" (as you yourself quote!), "lo sa'asu avel ba'mishpat lo sisa
penei dal", the Gemara "ein merahamin ba'din" which he explains to mean
"ein merahamin badin le'ish al heshbon ha'vero".  The last is an almost
explicit endorsement of my thesis, that there's at least an additional
injunction against favoritism in Din beyond any basic issue of
distortion of Halachah.  Moreover, Rav Uziel repeatedly refers to
Dayyanim and Ba'alei Din, as opposed to mere Morei Hora'ah.

I do concede that the matter is not quite as simple as I originally
claimed, since, as RMSS pointed out to me off-list, Rav Uziel does
mention the illegitimacy of distorting the Halachic process to be
lenient in a question of bastardy. which certainly seems to be an issue
Bein Adam Le'Makom.  Nevertheless, I stand by what I said, that his
primary concern seems to be the unfairness of non-neutral application
of Halachah to one litigant's detriment.


> Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

<Since hapeh she'asar hu hapeh shehitir, (the same beis din that was
gozeir against carrying in a karmelis invented eiruv), I think it would be
more accurate to frame it not so much as an eiruv is a matir as much as an
eiruv-surrounded karmelis never had an issur to begin with.>

    The term "eruv-surrounded karmelis" is an example of a ubiquitous misnomer.  All eruvim -- tavshilin, t'chumin and chatzeiros -- are food.  

    When it comes to carrying, there were two g'zeiros.  One introduced a
    fourth r'shus, karm'lis.  In order to carry therein, it is necessary to
    convert it into a r'shus hayachid, which can be done either with actual
    walls or with a tzuras hapesach -- two uprights at least 10 t'fachim
    high, and a crossbar which can be as thin as a wire or a string.  A
    person's unfenced backyard is an example; once a tzuras hapesach is
    made, no eruv is necessary.

     The second g'zeira prohibited carrying from one person's r'shus
     hayachid to another's, even where they are enclosed by actual walls.
     An example is a two-family house, where it is prohibited to carry from
     one half to the other, or from either half to mutual property, such as
     a back yard.  For this, no tzuras hapesach is necessary, since there
     are walls; but an eruv -- jointly-owned food placed on the property --
     is necessary to be m'arev, to blend the distinct r'shuyos hayachid
     into one.

     In city eruvin, both are necessary.  The streets must be enclosed,
     done by a tzuras hapesach if there are no natural walls; and the
     individually owned areas must become one, done by an eruv, usually
     matzos.  

     I surmise that when the tzuras hapesach occasionally was down, an
     announcement was made that the eruv could not be relied upon for
     carrying.	This apparently morphed into "The eruv is down." 

<Halakhah kedivrei hameiqil be'eruvin. I remember this from the Rosh, but eruvonline.blogspot.com lists the following:
Mordechai, Eruvin 1:482; Rosh, Eruvin 2:4 see the Gra, O.C. 358:5 and
the Bais Shlomo, siman 42; Maharash Elgazi, Halichos Eli, Klali 5 Ois
251 cites the Rabbeinu Chananel, Rambam and Tosfos; Mayim Rabbim,  siman
36, 38; Chacham Tzvi, siman 59; Bach HaChadash, Kuntrus Achron siman 3;
Yeshuas Yaakov, 363:5; Chasam Sofer, 6:82, and Maharsham, 4:105, 8:58:5,
9:18.>

     Look in that Rosh in Eruvin 4:2. He says that halacha k'divrei
     hameikil b'eruv, but not bimchitza, meaning that if there is a
     question of whether the tzuras hapesach is proper, we do not follow
     the meikil. (He does entertain the possibility that the rule may apply
     to the m'chitza as well.)	
 
     At any rate, the biggest kula -- the requirement of shishim ribo for a
     r'shus harabim -- certainly has nothing to with halacha k'divrei
     hameikil, because it is not a question of eruv, but of the existence
     or non-existence of a r'shus in which an eruv can be effective.

EMT 

____________________________________________________________
Study to be a Paralegal at a school near you.  Click here to get free info now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/
PnY6rw22EwCgTQOSAi8tZfB9T8i0o4bnaZ7iPpUPZmfbxyHZUYPl4/

he is saying that you cannot do the mitzvah of tallit and teffilin at the
expense of someone else.
Therefore wait until he wakes up or if necessary until the plane lands

Eli Turkel

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:16 AM,  <T6...@aol.com> wrote:
> From: "Eli Turkel" <elitur...@gmail.com>
>>>In particular R. P.C. Sheinberg rules that one is not allowed to waken a
> fellow passenger in order to get to one's tallit and tefillin.<<
>
>
>
>>>>>>
> It seems to me that this is a separate issue from davening with a minyan.
> You need your tallis and tefillin to daven Shacharis even without a minyan.
> Or is he saying that you should daven Shacharis at your seat without tallis
> and tefillin (if your seatmate is sleeping), and put on tefillin later?
>
> --Toby Katz
> =============
> "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed;
> if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed."
> -- Mark Twain
> Read *Jewish World Review* at http://jewishworldreview.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news & more!



-- 
Eli Turkel

RMB writes:

> Kochah deheteirah adif is not "it's better to be meiqil". This was
> discussed numerous times on Avodah. It means that since heter requires
> a greater burden of proof, its existence carries more weight in further
> decisions.
> 
> RYK characterizes it somewhat differently in
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n021.shtml#17>:
> > The term "Koach di'hetera adifa" is a pedagogic term, not a legal one.
> > It is used by chazal EXCLUSIVELY to mean that when a dispute between two
> > authorities applies to two different applications, one in which the kula
> > is the bigger chidush, and the other in which the chumrah is the bigger
> > chidush, and the statement can be taught in one of two ways, one
> > emphasizing the kula and the other emphasizing the chumra, we are always
> > taught the case where the kula is the bigger chidush. See Berachos 60a
> > and Beitzah 2b.
> > This is because it is a bigger chidush to teach the lenient ruling than
> > the strict ruling. (Se Rashi to Beitzah ad loc.)
> 
> I'm not sure we diagree, but I'm not sure we don't -- so I gave both.

I think you are missing the argument (RYK's comment was made in a different
context, of which I am not sure of the details).

The Rashi on Beitza cited by RYK says that it is better to teach the kula
"shehakol yochlin l'hachmir v'afilu b'dvar mutar".

That is, every Tom, Dick or Yankel is able to be machmir and assur, whether
or not the thing is in fact mutar.

That being the case, we don't need a great posek to tell us something is
assur, we can all manage to do this ourselves.  What we do need a great
posek for is to teach us what is mutar, because that we might not be able to
work out ourselves.

Thus, one of the fundamental roles of a great posek is to teach the kulos
(just as, on the same principle, the gemora preferred to teach the kulos
rather than the chumros when faced with a direct choice).  You should
therefore expect that the halachic teachings of a posek, which are found in
his written teshuvos, would be replete with kulos rather than chumros.  In
other words, one of the primary purposes of writing such teshuvos is koach
d'hetera adif, to make known the kulos, because they are the bigger
chiddushim and need to be taught.

So it is not that it is "better to be meikil", but rather that being machmir
will come by itself, while, being meikil is something that one needs to be
educated to do, and requires effort.  That being the case, however, if one
wants to encompass the truth of Torah, that does logically mean that one may
need to work a bit harder and seek out the kulos - and thus in this sense,
koach d'hetera adif operates to teach us the value in focusing on kulos
rather than chumros.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana

> Okay, here's my guess: Could it be that this halacha is based on the
> presumption that people would prefer to observe the relatively easy
> halachos of delayed information, and that they did not want to observe
> the relatively difficult halachos of timely information?

Here's a data point:

My late grandfather was the second-to-youngest of 9 siblings; most of
which emigrated from Germany to the USA (and Americanized their
surname) before he got married, harassed by the SS and escaped to
South Africa.

He was rarely in touch with them and - when in his 70's - he had to
sit Shiva twice in a year for a "forgotten" sibling he was not
impressed.

So for the 3rd sibling we simply didn't tell him until it was "old
news" at which time he only had to sit for an hour. He really
appreciated that.

Maybe we're simply too young to appreciate not having to sit Shiva
every few months for people we barely know.

- Danny, who has siblings in 3 continents.

RMM echoed R'Micha:
> I agree with R' Micha that Sefaradim seem to rely on
majority-vote...whereas Ashkenazim rely on sevara.... <
Where does the MB fit into this dichotomy?

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20081119/14a14157/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 391
***************************************

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..."