Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 85

Thu, 14 May 2009

• 1. Re: [Areivim] Tinok Shenishbah today - opinion of Gedolei Haposkim (Chana Luntz)
• 2. BD would kill a TSN who was m'challel Shabbos (M Cohen)
• 3. [Areivim] Tinok Shenishbah today - opinion of Gedolei Haposkim (Doron Beckerman)
• 4. Re: Love/Mercy as a Factor in Halakhic Decision (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Re: Boys Being Taught How to Cook (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 6. Re: Boys Being Taught How to Cook (y...@aol.com)
• 7. Re: Kvitlech (T6...@aol.com)
• 8. Re: is mayim acharonim a chumra? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 9. Re: BD would kill a TSN who was m'challel Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: is mayim acharonim a chumra? (Michael Poppers)
• 11. Re: Kvitlech (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: is mayim acharonim a chumra? (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Boys Being Taught How to Cook (Ben Waxman)
• 14. Re: Tinok Shenishbah today - opinion of Gedolei HaPoskim (Chana Luntz)
• 15. Re: is mayim acharonim a chumra? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 16. More on The Strange History of Lag B'Omer (Yitzchok Levine)

RDB writes:

> They are not Tinokos Shenishbu because, to quote RMF in Even HaEzer:
> 
> "They (Reform) are not at all to be considered Tinokos Shenishbu since
> they
> see many Shomrei Torah and Mitzvos, and see also Radbaz that there is
> almost
> no such a thing"

Rav Moshe is an interesting case, because he holds of a half way house -
between tinok shenishbu and rashaim gemorim - at least in relation to those
who are not Reform or Conservative rabbis.  He holds that today, such people
are to be considered as people who sin out of desire for parnasa or other
ta'avas - ie l'ta'avon rather than l'chachis.  On this basis he allows the
giving of aliyos to such people (excluding Reform or Conservative Rabbis)
Iggeros Moshe Orech Chaim [chelek 3 siman 12] and allows a non frum kohen to
duchen (Iggeros Moshe, Orech Chaim, Chelek aleph, siman 33.
 
In general, as I have said before, the question of tinok shenishbah comes up
halacha l'ma'ase most commonly in three situations:

a) can a non frum man be counted in a minyan?;

b) can a non frum man be given an aliya?; and

c) can a non frum kohen duchen?

Rav Moshe does not need any of these concepts for a) because he holds that
since we learn out the concept of minyan from the meraglim, who were rashaim
gemurim, it is pashut that one can count the biggest rasha in a minyan.

However, this is something of a daas yachid, and the vast majority of those
who discuss the question today discuss the concept of tinok shenishbah as
part of it.

Rav Ovadiah Yosef does his usual round up of sources in Yabiat Omer chelek 7
Orech Chaim siman 15.  The subject of ROY's teshuva there is the question of
a kohen duchaning, but most of the sources he brings are in relation to
counting a non frum Jew into a minyan.  And as you will see if you look
there, the vast majority allow it based on the concept of tinok shenishbah,
ie they rely on the Binyan Zion's formulation (which is technically - "like
a tinok shenishbah" not that they "are" a tinok shenishba).  

Of course this is not true of everybody, ROY brings the Minchas Eliezer and
the Morashas Moshe as completely rejecting the position of the Binyan Zion
(and I believe, at least in the case of the first, not allowing one to daven
with a minyan containing a non frum person).

But as Rav Ovadiah concludes, the majority holds like the Binyan Zion, and
hence so holds Rav Ovadiah - so I do not think you can say, categorically
that "they are not tinokos shenishbu" - at best you can say, I find more
convincing those who do not hold by the concept of tinok shenishba as
applying to chiloni Jews today, even if it is, if anything, something of a
minority opinion over all.

Regards

Chana

...So was explained to me by R' Berger from Aish (IIRC - Where I held
the position that BD wouldn't kill a TSN who was m'challel Shabbos and he
disagreed).

btw even if true, it is obviously only with witnesses and proper warning.


I have wondered about the din of my chazis and TSN.

ie if a goy held a gun to one's head and said either kill a TSN or be
killed,
are you mechyav to be moser nefesh?

mordechai cohen

There's alot to say about how to reconcile the Rambam with the Gedolei
Haposkim, but in summary:

1) The level of knowledge today suffices to judge them as Mezidim (Radvaz
(they have been *warned* to return to Torah,not just heard about it); Mabit
(I:37 - Once they have received reproof and not returned they are like their
fathers, and "they know that they come from Jewish seed and that their
fathers have denied the Oral Law", Maharikash (33,34 - they are *like*
Anussim after they have heard the truth - not really Anussim. Therefore
don't *rush* to kill them since they might do Teshuvah).

2) Rambam is only talking about not rushing to kill them, but regarding
other Halachos they are like gentiles (Radvaz, Mabit, Maharikash, Ginas
Veradim (II:31).

3) [Limited applicability] Denigration of the Chachmei Hador makes them
Mezidim, and makes it unlikely for them to do Teshuvah (Re'em (57); Ginas
Veradim, Maharash Vital (Be'er Mayim Chayim 41). They also cause other Jews
to follow them because of this (Rambam Perush Hamishnah Chullin 1).

The Chazon Ish himself writes that the Machlokes Acharonim is on the issue
of "the level of knowledge, to what extent to they know of the existence of
the Jews, and that their fathers separated from them and turn their
shoulder." He also writes that the reason why the Tinokos Shenishbu are
treated as Jews is because they have a Chazakah that they will repent if
told sufficiently. While among the Chilonim today there are Chozrim
B'Teshuvah, it is difficult to say that they have a Chazakah of doing
Teshuvah, see Ginas Veradim there. The CI forbade foods cooked in factories
by non-Torah observant Jews, and RYSE says that we see that L'chumrah the CI
did not think they had a Din of TNS.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090513/6a639856/attachment-0001.htm>

 
 However, unlike Rambam, Rashba and other Rishonim, I don't think that
we can assume that by virtue of his greatness, ipso facto none of
RHDhL's ideas could be questionable. He would need more support.)


Kol tuv,
--
Arie Folger
====================================================
Interesting that you state it that way when in our generation  ideas of
Rishonim have been declared not just questionable but apikorsut (for us
of course, not them)
KT
Joel Rich
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.

Ben:
> Actually, that isn't quite accurate. Abraham and Isaac owned a lot of
> animals but where are they described as sheperds?

Breishis 47:3 roeih tzon ..gam anachnu gam avoseinu

Ben
> Jacob was given the job when he went to Lot's;

Lavan not Lot
Furthermore Yosheiv ohalim re: Ya'akov is interpreted by some as roeh
tzon etc. based upon Breishis 4:20 - avi yoshev ohel umikneh

Ben
> he didn't choose it. Same with Moshe; he was given the
> job. Only David can really be described as having been a sheperd and
> in all probability that is what his family did.

I don't think choice is relevant. the point is that ro'I'm - whether tzon
or mikneh and whether by choice or chance- are free to contemplate HKBH.
Probably hashgacha prattis allowed the Avos to have that profession

Also Hazal see hevel and kayyin as protoypes or role models...

-RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

In terms of the original point, if you won't concede anything as
specific as shepherding, I guess you also wouldn't concede RYL's point
about teaching cooking.

See last Mishna of Kiddushin.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090513/a7b03c5d/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: Allan Engel _allan.engel@gmail.com_ (mailto:allan.en...@gmail.com) 

Does anyone  know the earliest recorded instance of people putting Kvitlech
in the Kosel  Ma'arovi?
And why do people doing this believe that the RBSO needs a written  reminder
of people's prayers?


AD Engel







>>>>
Do we even need to daven at the Kosel?  Can't Hashem hear our tefillos  
wherever we are?
 
The lavona on top of the lechem hapanim is called the "azkara" -- Rashi  
says because it is the only thing from the shulchan that is burnt on the  
mizbeach -- the bread is all given to the kohanim to eat -- and the lavona is  
the azkara, "the remembrance" or "reminder" -- because when it is burnt it  
reminds Hashem of the bread that was given to the kohanim.  Like Hashem  
needed a reminder?
 
The shofar is blown to arouse Hashem's mercy because it sounds like the  
sound of crying.  Like He needed the shofar to arouse His mercy?   Another 
reason for blowing the shofar is actually mentioned in the Torah as  "zichron 
teruah" which Rashi explains as reminding Hashem of Akeidas Yitzchak by  
reminding Him of the ram that was sacrificed instead of Yitzchak. Again, He  
needed a reminder?
 
Here's one, even more poignant -- I just learned this last week when Rabbi  
Zohn (the famous expert on chevra kadisha laws and minhagim) was here for 
an  all-day Chevra Kadisha conference, which I attended -- and by the way, 
even  after many years of doing taharos, I learned a lot of things that I had 
not  previously known.  And here is one:  if a Jew dies al kiddush Hashem,  
that is, if he is murdered by goyim, he is not washed, not given a  tahara, 
and not dressed in tachrichim -- rather, he is buried in the  bloody clothes 
that he was wearing when he lost his life -- and that  is how he will 
appear before the Kisei Hakavod -- to arouse Hashem's mercy on  His people.
 
Hashem didn't see the murder when it was taking place?
 
Since we are physical people -- and even in our Afterlife there is an  
aspect of "bodily-ness"  -- WE need concrete objects and concrete  actions.  WE 
do not live a disembodied life of pure mental abstraction, and  we cannot 
approach Hashem in a purely mental disembodied way.
 

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




_______________
**************Recession-proof vacation ideas.  Find free things to do in 
the U.S. 
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/nation
al-tourism-week?ncid=emlcntustrav00000002)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090513/d6d2cc7f/attachment-0001.htm>

Summary (so far :-)

AISI:
Reb Shlomoh Pick has made a convincing argument that mayim acharonim is
still a chov.
And that Tosafos is essentially being lomeid zechus for those who do not,
but is not issuing a heter.


Unresolved chakira (as she'iltos would say bram tz'rich):
Is wiping one's hands on a napkin a valid alternative for mayim acharonim
or not?

Those who are not makpid on dibbur for mayim rishonim - should be makpid
on no dibbur before mayim acharonim
AFAIK this is a Sephardic understanding of teikef lintilah brachah.  (Caveat maybe some Sephardim learn otherwise.)

Those following the Rosh - who holds "teikef" applies to mayyim rishonim
- need NOT be makpid on no talking before acharonim - as verified by
ba'er hetev.
Neverthless, a form of hefsek seems to apply anyway as per Rambam,
machaber, and others and certainly eating after mayim acharonim is a
hefsek and I would add shinuy maqom etc.
But this din of hefsek is not really the hefsek of dibbur - although
probably the less hefsek the better because many/most posqim are machmir.

Arizal is makpid on hefsek dibbur by acharonim. Why? It is most likely
that he holds the Sephardic sheeta above that this is how he learns
Teikef. It is also possible that Arizal is makpid on dibbur by acharonim
al pi sod and NOT al pi halachah perhaps as an issue of better kavvanah.

Being makpid on dibbur in both cases of rishonim and acharonim is applying
"Teikef" both ways lechumra. IMHO since this is a derabbanan at most it
is an unnecesary humra.
Ksil bachoshech yahaloch is when one is tofeis the humros of 2 different
schools of thought.

Tangentially Today's Yoreh Deiah lesson dealt with this legabei zli,
mefapei'a, and kdei netilah. See sefer hasheetos, YD 105:4-5

[Email #2. -mi]

PS
Baer Hetev 179:1 led me to SA 183:6 and MB 183:21
(I don't have MGA handy)
Where SA & MB seem to be makpid 
"Mishenasnu lo cos levareich lo yasi'ah hamevareich.."

Now if mayyim acharonim had triggered the no talking rule what's the
hiddush here? Why davka the mevoreich is assur to talk after taking
the cos?

Halo everyone who washed Mayyim Acharonim is assur to talk? This diyyuq
is apparently the ba'er Hetev's source that talking is OK.

-RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

M Cohen wrote:
> ...So was explained to me by R' Berger from Aish (IIRC - Where I held
> the position that BD wouldn't kill a TSN who was m'challel Shabbos and he
> disagreed).

That doesn't seem possible.  How could he say "af al pi ken"?  He would
surely say "huh? what is this 'shabbos' of which you speak?"

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

In Avodah Digest V26#83, RZS responded to RAM:
>> Mayim Acharonim must be done with a reviis of water <<
> No, it doesn't.   There is no minimum shiur.  And al pi sod it should
be done with as little water as possible, because it is the "chelek
adam rasha". <
Nor need it be done w/ mayim (see BY&SA 181:9).

Mei'inyan l'inyan, a Q for those who wash MA because, after all, chamira
sakanta mei'isura: do you also wash between eating basar and eating dagim
(see Tur 173 and BY&SA 173:2), and if not, why not?  (Yes, you could note
MA 173:1, but then you have to note MA 181:1's "d'[MA] einah chovah
kal-kach" -- MA is consistent ;-).)  Thanks.

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090513/69d85157/attachment-0001.htm>

> Since we are??physical people -- and even in our Afterlife there is
> an aspect of "bodily-ness"?? -- WE need??concrete objects and concrete
> actions.?? WE do not live a disembodied life of pure mental abstraction,
> and we cannot approach Hashem in a purely mental disembodied way.
> --Toby Katz

Well said. The Sefer haChinuch echoes this theme of chomer re: shofar etc.

However, one can make a hilluk between mitzvos of Hashem, mitzvos of
Hazal, and simple practices that may be questionable or problematic.

OTOH Yidden did do kamei'os even though tzitzis, Tefiilin, and mezuzos
seem enough to me.

-RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Michael Poppers wrote:

> Mei'inyan l'inyan, a Q for those who wash MA because, after all, chamira 
> sakanta mei'isura: do you also wash between eating basar and eating 
> dagim (see Tur 173 and BY&SA 173:2)

Only if I've touched the fish with my fingers.

Mayim emtza'iyim reshut.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Right but only with Jacob's sons do we actually see the Avot shepherding. 
With Avraham it is explicit that he had employees doing the work. So yes, 
technically they may called themselves shepherds, but tachlis Avraham was 
home and others did the shepherding.

And frankly I think that we are really being romantic about the job of 
shepherding. From Yaacov's description of his job in Breishit 31:40 it 
doesn't sound like a job which is conducive to philosophizing. And from what 
I saw when I lived in Niger, not much has changed.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com>

> Ben:
>> Actually, that isn't quite accurate. Abraham and Isaac owned a lot of
>> animals but where are they described as sheperds?
>
> Breishis 47:3 roeih tzon ..gam anachnu gam avoseinu
>
> Ben
>> Jacob was given the job when he went to Lot's;
> I don't think choice is relevant. the point is that ro'I'm - whether tzon
> or mikneh and whether by choice or chance- are free to contemplate HKBH.
> Probably hashgacha prattis allowed the Avos to have that profession

RMB writes:

> Let's go back a step. The phrase TNS comes up in the gemara as an
> example of shogeig in which the person commits numerous aveiros under
> the same error.
> 
> How is it then possible to take someone who is committing aveiros under a
> misapprehension due to upbringing and NOT call him a TNS? Alternatively,
> if you do, why wouldn't he be equally a shogeig despite the lack of label,
> and thus have the same din anyway?

I think to really understand what is going on, you need to take a step back.


The basic principle flowing through from the gemora in Avodah Zara and on,
is that a person who is mechallel shabbas b'farhesia is kofer b'ikar, is
like one who is oved avodah zara, and it is impossible for them to do
teshuva (or at best, when they try, the effort is so overwhelming that it
will kill them).  Such people are beyond redemption - or at the very least,
it is not for us to assume their redemption, but we must reject them out of
hand.

The sources for this are all very clear.

So the answer to your question above is - if we are talking about being a
full fledged mechallel shabbas b'farhesia, no, that person would not truly
be a shogeg - to act in such a manner is to put himself beyond the bounds of
the Jewish people.

While the Rambam is of course the source for extending the concept of TSN to
the Karaites, in a way that is a diversion, because the Karaites were a very
separate group, and the issues are different.

Instead in many ways it is far more fruitful to look at the more modern day
situation (although what we are describing goes back in a number of places
for nearly 200 years)- and looking at the Binyan Zion, the Melamed L'Hoil
and the kinds of situations they were describing, and led to them using the
concept.

The thing is, if you relate to a person using the classical understanding
then, as a consequence:

a) a kiruv movement is pointless; 

b) a baalei teshuva movement is impossible; and

c) you pretty much need to relate to the non frum the way you are expected
to relate to a bone fide oved avodah zara - you certainly cannot be yotzei
their  brochas, - according to most, join them in a minyan, etc etc.

It is a position, one needs to acknowledge it as a legitimate position, but
once you think through what people are actually doing today you can see why
it is not the majority position.

Most people in searching around for an alternative, end up with the Binyan
Zion's formulation of TSN, but it is not the only alternative.  Rav Moshe
has an alternative - which is, the majority of these people are not like
ovdei avodah zara, they are not like people who are kofer b'ikar, they are
just like the rest of us who do averos out of ta'avah.  Some of us might
speak loshon hora because the urge is too great - that does not make us
beyond the pale, it just makes us people who have done aveiros and who need
teshuva.  Similarly people who are mechalel shabbas b'farhesia are usually
doing it because they want the parnassa, or they want whatever it is that
they get out of doing the averah, and their ta'avos overcome them.  He
excludes from this category reform and conservative rabbis, whom he holds
truly are doing it because they believe in the essence of what they are
doing.

If you follow Rav Moshe's position - there is probably not much point for
the kiruv movement as found today. What you need is more of a tochacha
movement.  On the other hand, he would expect a ba'alei teshuva movement,it
is quite likely that many of the people to whom he refers will indeed do
teshuva - especially as they get older and they retire and their desires
dominate less.  However, he would not expect any reform or conservative
rabbi to do teshuva.

To be honest, I certainly knew numbers of people who to my mind fitted Rav
Moshe's description to T, although most of them came from Europe and are now
gone.  These were the people who opened the shop on shabbas, because they
felt they could not do without the parnasa, and while keeping kosher at
home, ate treif out, as they did not feel able to lose face in front of
friends and business partners (and the kinds of kosher restaurants available
were not the sort of thing they could take such people to). Once they
retired they were often back to being in shul.  For such people, you might
have tried questioning whether parnassa was really more important than the
Ribono Shel Olam, but you would not have needed to explain to them either
shabbas, parnassa or the Ribono Shel Olam.  These sort of people would, of
course most certainly not have ended up as a reform or conservative rabbis -
in most countries the shuls they didn't go to were Orthodox, although in the
US, given the proliferation of alternatives, that might not always be the
case - but the problem was that they were not serious enough about
yiddishkeit, not that they were going to spend their life studying and
teaching it the wrong way.

Now this approach, as you can see, worked very much for the kind of old
timers that were found in a lot of Orthodox shuls, but in the more recent
teshuvos from Rav Moshe you did find some language of "like tinok shenishba"
creeping in, seeming to deal with the new breed who were, unlike the group
above, pretty clueless about yiddishkeit generally.  But I don't think Rav
Moshe ever had any real need to move beyond this intermediate category
halacha l'ma'ase.  After all, by allowing people who were not frum to have
aliyos, to duchen etc, he had taken away most of the issues that needed
discussing.

As to your question as to whether Rav Moshe would have today or even in the
80/90s - which is after the times he was writing, have considered even
reform and conservative rabbis to fall within a different category than
kofer b'ikar, we can really only speculate.  However, I suspect that the key
criteria for Rav Moshe would not so much have been the knowledge levels of
those within JTS, but whether or not such people could do teshuva and join
the ba'alei teshuva movement - if we started seeing a reasonably steady
stream out of JTS and into the Orthodox world (and I think to an extent we
have seen at least a trickle if not more than that) then I personally do
suspect he might have revised his assessment.  Because part of the
underlying assessment is that these people are beyond redemption - they are
so wedded to their incorrect understanding of the world, and so dedicated to
it, that teshuva is close to impossible.  On the other hand because of his
understanding that a Reform/Conservative seminary is not really any
different to a seminary for priests to serve avodah zara, he would have been
extremely reluctant to give any recognition to anybody who was still
carrying the title of such a priesthood, so long as and until they had made
the break.

But most people have preferred not to go down RMF's route.  This is true
historically, and is probably even more true today.  The reason I say even
more true today is because the kiruv movement and its focus on education
makes little sense within such an analysis.  The philosophy behind the kiruv
movement is TSN and the Binyan Zion - it only makes sense to put a huge
effort into education if it is clear that people will start doing the right
thing with education, which then demonstrates that what they were lacking
before was education.  Education towards keeping mitzvos, aka chinuch, is
what we generally provide to children.  To the extent that one believes that
the kiruv movement has been a success, that merely teaching adults achieves
results, and that the ba'alei teshuva movement is indeed real and a product
of the kiruv movement, then you don't have a lot of other places to go.

The other problem with RMF's approach (which may or may not be a problem to
you philosophically) is that in effect he downgrades the importance of
shabbas, or at least the public observance of shabbas - by making it just
another mitzvah that people can be over on l'ta'avon.  Whether you shrug
your shoulders and say, well that is how it is, or whether you are less
happy with that trade off, will depend on you, but historically the sources
have been very clear that the public observance of shabbas is the litmus
test of an observant Jew, and by rejecting the TSN approach, but still
allowed the non frum to have aliyos and for us to be yotzei from their
brochos, Rav Moshe has in effect done away with this litmus test, bringing
it down to the level of every other mitzvah.

The alternative is, of course, to reject all of this.  Presumably though if
you were thinking this through, not only would you (unless you held like Rav
Moshe that minyan is from the meraglim) have to refuse to be part of a
minyan that contained somebody non shomer shabbas befarhesia, one might also
have to refuse to be part of a minyan with someone who once upon a time was
non shomer shabbas befarhesia - because it is not for us to assume their
genuine ability to do teshuva, given the difficulties.

> > Tir'u baTov!
> > -Micha

Regards

Chana

> Mei'inyan l'inyan, a Q for those who wash MA because, after all, chamira
> sakanta mei'isura: do you also wash between eating basar and eating
> dagim
> Michael Poppers

Disclaimer:
I am not disputing Zev's point, just let me add this:

The only TALMUDIC problem with meat and fish afaik is conjunction with
cooking them together.
The rest is AFAIK a minhag or zehirus b'alma.
(AFAIK the Rosh was the one who was makpid)

Also Note: between milk and meat there is a machlokes rishonim re:
the hadacha of kinu'ach and hadacha. Only some hold hands, most hold
rinsing mouth. (Yes, pun intended)

FWIW I usually have some hallah and sip something between fish and meat.
Almost a slam dunk that - even if hands touch fish - kinu'ach (as in
napkin) should suffice. Mayyim acharonim which has rules from Talmud
is therefore stricter AIUI.

-RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

After listening to Prof. Shnayer Leiman's talk titled The Strange 
History of Lag B'Omer, I can only wonder what the basis is for the 
"celebrations" that are held on Lag B'Omer night in many places. 
According to him, there is no basis for such behavior. In addition, 
he says that the proper celebration of Lag B'Omer, if there is to be 
any, is fasting. This seems to imply that what goes on in Meron is 
"inappropriate," at best.

The practice of making bonfires and then singing and dancing around 
them on Lag B'Omer night has even spread to Flatbush! (For the 
record, I could never understand how such celebrations can take place 
in light of the fact that according to all but two of the customs 
regarding Sefirah, aveilus is applicable on Lag B'Omer night. See 
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2008/05/mourning-during-omer-2.shtml )

Can anyone justify what we see going on in our times regarding the 
"celebration" of Lag B'Omer? Is Dr. Leiman wrong in what he says 
about this day?

Since some had trouble accessing this talk from it original site, I 
have created a web page from which one can either listen to the talk 
or download it and save it. Please see

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/history/lag_bomer_leiman.html

Yitzchok Levine
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090514/2fa3ffd9/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 85
**************************************

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..."