Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 39

Sun, 07 Feb 2010

• 1. Re: davening in public (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Davening Outside (was davening in public) (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Re: curly peyos (dbm...@aol.com)
• 4. Re: Davening Outside (was davening in public) (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Davening Outside (was davening in public) (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Davening Outside (was davening in public) (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Davening Outside (was davening in public) (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Davening Outside (was davening in public) (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: Davening Outside (was davening in public) (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: davening in public (Danny Schoemann)
• 11. Re: Hilchta Lmishicha (David Cohen)
• 12. Halacha vs. Policy - Poll re: Who To Marry (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 13. Re: Habituation (Michael Makovi)
• 14. Re: Halacha vs. Policy - Poll re: Who To Marry (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 15. Re: Halacha vs. Policy - Poll re: Who To Marry (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)

I am not sure about davening in the open under the heavens.
Of course at the Kotel it is usually done (except for those inside the
tunnels) Also in EY it is common to see cars pulled over late in the day
and people davening mincha outside their cars where such activities are not
unusual

Furthermore during the summer I frequently see groups on a tiyul (both RZ and charedi) davening mincha outside

shabbat shaom




--
Eli Turkel
_______________________________________________
http://download.yutorah.org
/2010/1062/740897/Davening%20in%20the%20parking%20lot/under%20the%20stars-%
20Chutzpa.MP3
Rabbi Yehoshua Grunstein - Davening in the parking lot/under the stars- Chutzpa?
Talmudic source against davening outside, quoted by S"A but not others -
some possible explanations why and reasons (humility, intent in prayer, not
being bothered) and some possible differing implications (e.g. don't put on
tfillin on commuter flights out of LaGuardia?) [add to my question list -
daven outside with minyan vs. inside by self?]

KT
Joel Rich

As of February 22, our New York Office will be located at:
333 West 34th St.
New York, NY 10001-2402
All telephone and fax numbers (and e-mail addresses) will remain the same.
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.

At 11:24 AM 2/5/2010, Eli Turkel wrote:

>I am not sure about davening in the open under the heavens.
>Of course at the Kotel it is usually done (except for those inside 
>the tunnels)
>Also in EY it is common to see cars pulled over late in the day and
>people davening mincha
>outside their cars where such activities are not unusual
>
>Furthermore during the summer I frequently see groups on a tiyul (both
>RZ and charedi)
>davening mincha outside

Someone mentioned to me that Kiddush Levana and Birchas Ha Chamah are 
both done outside.  However, it may well be that the prohibition that 
Reb Yaakov was talking about was saying Shemoneh Esrei outside under 
the heavens. After all, it is not uncommon for people to go on 
picnics and make brochos on the food they are eating.

As far as the Kosel goes, I received the following:

Please see Tosfos Brochos perek 4, ein omdin daf lamed daled omed 
beis (34B) dibur habaschil chotzuf, Re Yitchok ovinu, : "Har HaMoria 
shaane !",
see side comment there.  so the Kosel is the same matter.

I replied, "However, it is not at all clear to me that the Kosel 
Plaza has the same din as the Har Habyis.  It certainly does not have 
the same kedusha, because if it did, then many would hold that one is 
not allowed to even set foot there.  After all, the Kosel is an outer 
wall built by Herod. It was certainly not part of the Bais Hamikdash. "

He replied, "It seems right that only Shmoneh Esreh is the issue.  Re 
"Kosel Plaza", it is Har-HaMoria (not only Har habayis that matters)"

YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100205/9a068b18/attachment-0001.htm>

>Stranger than the curly payos is the fact that he seems to have shaved
>part of his beard -- his cheeks are clean-shaven and he only has hair 
>on	his chin and under his jaw.  The juxtaposition of the curly payos 
>and sylized beard is very strange-looking.	(Unless -- is it  possible?
> -- that's just how his beard happened to grow?  It really	looks
>shaved, not the bits of fluff and fuzz some men have who can't grow a
>full  beard.)
 

>--Toby Katz

Such beard styles was very common among Central European rabbis of the period, ie, early 19th century. 

However, you seem to have overlooked the fact that he was co-editor of
Hameassef, THE periodical of the Berlin Haskalah. However, this is
irrelevant for the reason I said; loads of rabbis had similar beards. Not
trimming the beard at all seems to be a bit of a (new style) Chassidishe
practice, albeit with kabbalistic sources in mind. Even an old style
Chassid like the Gra seems to have at least trimmed his beard and mustache.
Obviously the style depicted is "funkier" and more modern than the modestly
trimmed beard of the Gra and various other famous rabbis of the period, but
in principle there's not touching the beard on one side, and trimming it to
make it neater on the other.

All of that aside, it certainly *is* possible that's how his beard grew. It's a drawing after all, and not a photograph.

SW


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100205/749d3e8d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 12:05:43PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
: As far as the Kosel goes, I received the following:
:> Please see Tosfos Brochos perek 4, ein omdin daf lamed daled omed 
:> beis (34B) dibur habaschil chotzuf, Re Yitchok ovinu, : "Har HaMoria 
:> shaane !",
:> see side comment there.  so the Kosel is the same matter.
...
: He replied, "It seems right that only Shmoneh Esreh is the issue.  Re 
: "Kosel Plaza", it is Har-HaMoria (not only Har habayis that matters)"

According to <http://www.templemount.org/moriah.gif> this would include
all of the Old City, Ir David (Silwan) and a little more.

See also the Catherwood Map of J-m, which has topographical shading
<http://www.campsci.com/museum/images/cathwood.jpg>.

So, you could daven outdoors in the Rova?

Still, minhag Yisrael is to daven outside when necessary. I would be
surprised to learn no heter exists for the rest of the planet.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Prof. Levine wrote:
> As far as the Kosel goes, I received the following:
> 
> *Please see Tosfos Brochos perek 4, ein omdin daf lamed daled omed beis 
> (34B) dibur habaschil chotzuf, Re Yitchok ovinu, : "Har HaMoria shaane !",
> see side comment there.  so the Kosel is the same matter.
> *I replied, "However, it is not at all clear to me that the Kosel Plaza 
> has the same din as the Har Habyis.  It certainly does not have the same 
> kedusha

But why is Har Hamoriah different?  It has nothing to do with its
kedusha, but rather, as the Taz says, because it was only *called* a
"field" but wasn't really a "mokom porutz".


Micha Berger wrote:
>> He replied, "It seems right that only Shmoneh Esreh is the issue.  Re 
>> "Kosel Plaza", it is Har-HaMoria (not only Har habayis that matters)"
> 
> According to <http://www.templemount.org/moriah.gif> this would include
> all of the Old City, Ir David (Silwan) and a little more.

Not all of the Old City; the Old City is based on *two* mountains,
which used to be separated by a valley; the valley got filled in over
the past 2000 years.


> Still, minhag Yisrael is to daven outside when necessary. I would be
> surprised to learn no heter exists for the rest of the planet.

The heter is very simple.  The issur applies only when there is a
safe house ready to hand in which to daven.   The Magen Avraham says
"*uposhut* she'ovrei drochim mispalelim basodeh".

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

> He replied, "It seems right that only Shmoneh Esreh is the issue.? Re "Kosel
> Plaza", it is Har-HaMoria (not only Har habayis that matters)"
>

I am lost - The kotel plaza is NOT on har Hamoriah.
It is at the foot of the wall where in bayit sheni times were stores
selling various goods for pilgrims (the ancient walkway was discovered
several years ago)


-- 
Eli Turkel

On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 08:17:29PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I am lost - The kotel plaza is NOT on har Hamoriah.

It's not? I thought Har haBayis was one peak on har haMoriah.

Hadrian built the Antonia fortress on a higher one, just outside the
North-West corner of Har haBayis, overlooking (and implicitly
threatening) the Jews within.

AFAIK, unlike RZS's post, the slopes of Har haMoria did end at Gei Ben
Hinnom. "Vesa;ar haggevul... ir Benei Yehudah, zos pe'as Yam.... Vayarad
haggevul el qetzeih hahar, asher al penei gei Ven Hinnom..." (Yehoshua
18:14,16) It doesn't say that Ir Benei Yehudah is on Har haMoriah,
but Ir David was. So, I'll leave it with a "AFAIK".

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

At 01:17 PM 2/6/2010, Eli Turkel wrote:
> > He replied, "It seems right that only Shmoneh 
> Esreh is the issue.?  Re "Kosel
> > Plaza", it is Har-HaMoria (not only Har habayis that matters)"
> >
>
>I am lost - The kotel plaza is NOT on har Hamoriah.
>It is at the foot of the wall where in bayit sheni times were stores
>selling various goods for pilgrims (the ancient walkway was discovered
>several years ago)
>
>
>--
>Eli Turkel


I agree with you. The Kosel Plaza is not IMO on 
Har  HaMoria. I simply conveyed the response I got.

YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100206/f74331bb/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 08:17:29PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
> : I am lost - The kotel plaza is NOT on har Hamoriah.
> 
> It's not? I thought Har haBayis was one peak on har haMoriah.
> 
> Hadrian built the Antonia fortress on a higher one, just outside the
> North-West corner of Har haBayis, overlooking (and implicitly
> threatening) the Jews within.
> 
> AFAIK, unlike RZS's post, the slopes of Har haMoria did end at Gei Ben
> Hinnom.

Gei Ben Hinnom is in the south.  The valley that used to go through
the Old City ran north to south, separating the mountain on which are
Har Habayit and Ir David, and which was known then as Har Tziyon, from
the western mountain which is now known as Har Tziyon, where the so-
called "Kever David" is.  That's why it's impossible for a tunnel to
have led from "Kever David" to the Kidron valley: it would have had
to go through that mountain, then through empty air to the other
mountain, and clear through it to the Kidron.  And since we know that
such a tunnel did exist from the actual Kever David, that actual Kever
must be in what's known as Ir David.

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

>>He also emphasized that it was against halacha to stand outside and
>>daven out in the open under the 'Kippas HaShamayim'. Lastly, he told
>>him that although many try and solve this problem by going into an
>>empty telephone booth to daven, this is pure gezeilah from the phone
>>companies. After all, while one is in there davening mincha, he's
>>preventing others from entering and paying to make their phone calls."
>>

>I am not sure about davening in the open under the heavens.
>Of course at the Kotel it is usually done (except for those inside the tunnels)
>Also in EY it is common to see cars pulled over late in the day and
>people davening mincha
>outside their cars where such activities are not unusual
>
>Furthermore during the summer I frequently see groups on a tiyul (both
>RZ and charedi) davening mincha outside

See Mishna Berura Vol. 1 - page 242. Here's a quick overview:

SA OC 90:5: "One should not daven in an open place like a field,
because when you're in a private place you have fear of the King and
your heart is broken". (Source Brachot 34)

MB (10 - Should not daven): The Gemara says that one who transgresses
this is called "brazen".

MB (11 - open place): According to one answer in Tos, davening at the
edge of the road where people will not interrupt you is OK. However
the Bes Yosef disagrees. Even though the latter commentators side with
Tos., the Zohar implies one should davka daven in a house.
According to everybody, travelers may daven in the field, though of
there are trees, it's preferable to daven between them there, if he
can afford the delay. However, at home you may not rely on this.

MB (12 - like a field): And a fenced in area - even w/o a roof - is OK.

- Danny, not a Rabbi

R' Joel Rich asked about the Talmud's reluctance to pasken on "Hilchta
Lmishicha."

I think that this could be related to the issue of whether we "pasken" in
matters of aggadeta.  See the approach that I associated with the Rambam's
view of machalokes here:
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n020.shtml#05  (though 4 years later,
when rereading what I wrote, I'm not so sure that it's correct to associate
this with the Rambam...)

In short, this school of thought says that pesak (in the sense of picking
between multiple legitimate positions) is a "necessary evil."  Really, "eilu
ve'eilu divrei Elokim Chayim." but when it comes to practical halachah, for
the sake of uniformity of practice, we are forced to pick a side.  When this
concern is not relevant, as in matters of aggadeta*, we have no need to pick
a side.  When this concern will only become relevant in yemos hamashiach, we
can "cross that bridge when we come to it."  Why engage in the "problematic"
task of pesak before we're forced to?

(* Matters of aggadeta can, of course, be very relevant as far as general
approaches that one takes in his avodas Hashem, and each individual can
adopt the aggadic position that he finds more compelling, but I don't think
that there's necessarily inherent value in uniformity in this area in the
way that there is for solid halachic details.  In other words, the hashkafah
mosaic of chassidim, misnagdim, religious Zionist, etc., is an asset to Am
Yisrae'l.  Having a situation where some people use the eruv and others
don't, on the other hand, is unfortunate.)

-- D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100207/f4b5b7c9/attachment-0001.htm>

NishmaBlog: Results of Poll on: Who To Marry?
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2010/01/results-of-poll-on-who-to-ma
rry.html

Rabbi Hecht:
> I was told that a famous gadol of the previous generation once used this
> question to illustrate the distinction between a "big talmid chacham"
> and a gadol.

> He said that the former would clearly choose Option A for, in terms of
> severity of the specific aveira, sleeping with a nidda is much worse than
> sleeping with a non-Jewish woman. Relations with a niddah is an offence
> punishable by koreit but, in the case of sleeping with a non-Jewish woman,
> while there are disagreements on the exact nature of the prohibition --
> even whether d'oraitha or d'rabbanan, an asei or lo ta'asei -- no one
> describes it in that severe category. (We are not discussing the case of
> public sexual relations with an idolatrous woman for which the principle
> of kanaim pogin bo applies.)

> A gadol, he continued, would, though, choose Option B. This is a case for
> policy considerations and, in this regard, promoting a marriage between
> two Jews versus an intermarriage clearly has priority. In the case of
> two Jews marrying, there is a chance for a second generation that would
> be able to enter the kanfei haShechina as well as a greater chance for
> teshuva in regard to the couple itself.

GV
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

> And here's where, AIUI, you go wrong: the heter is not
> habituation but distraction.
>
> R' Zev Sero

I don't see a meaningful difference in halakhah. I think that all
halakhah cares about is whether you are getting hirhur or not. Whether
you're avoiding hirhur because of habituation or distraction, I don't
think halakhah cares. If you're not getting hirhur, you're not getting
hirhur. Can a blind man look at pornographic images? I assume so - he
won't get hirhur! So what if he isn't distracted? He's blind for
crying out loud!!!

Rav Hai Gaon, Tosafot, the Ramah, the Maharshal, the Levush, the Arukh
ha-Shulhan, they all pasqen that habituation is accepted in halakhah,
based on the aggadot about rabbis doing things like carrying women on
their shoulders, watching the mikvah, etc.

The Beit Yosef (Orah Haim 75) derives from the Rambam's discussion of
an exposed tefah during Shema, that the only tefah that is prohibited
to be exposed, is one that is ordinarily covered and concealed. The
Tur there also seems to permit the exposure of those body parts that
are customarily exposed all the time.

The Ra'avyah says that we aren't concerned with an unmarried woman's
uncovered hair, because we're used to it, and likewise with her
speaking voice. (I don't understand the Arukh ha-Shulhan's statement
that there is a d'oraita for a married woman to cover her hair,
whether or not there's hirhur. Given that the Gemara and Rambam speak
of Jewish WOMEN covering their hair, married or not, where did the
Arukh ha-Shulhan derive a principle of married women specifically
being required? I'm honestly confused. According to what I've seen,
the only heter that UN-married women have,is a hergel one. Were it not
for habituation, unmarried women would have exactly the same
requirement to cover their hair as married women. Shouldn't hergel
apply to married women just the same as unmarried women, given that
the Gemara and Rambam don't distinguish between married and unmarried
women?)

The Ra'avad (quoted by the Rashba), like the Ra'avya, says qol isha
doesn't include speech, because we're used to women speaking.

It seems to me that hergel is a principle running through all the laws
of tzniut. The Tur in EH 21 relates all the laws of tzniut to pen yavo
l'harher bah. It seems clear to me at least that there are NO
permanent laws of tzniut. EVERY law of tzniut is designed to prevent
hirhur, and where there is no hirhur, there is no issur, either. It
seems like all the laws of tzniut are an extension of etzba ketana;
the issur is only where there's hirhur.

What did the Gemara do, then? It told us what gave hirhur in ITS time,
but not necessarily in our time.

And sociology can affect hirhur a lot. In Mauritania today, for
example, obese women are more sexually attractive than healthy women,
and in parts of Africa, breasts are nothing to write home about.  It
seems to me that everything Hazal said about tzniut applied only to
their time. In every place and time, one must reevaluate what causes
hirhur and what doesn't. Nowadays, for example, breasts clearly cause
hirhur, but hair doesn't. Even within America, what causes hirhur for
black men and white women might differ - there's a line in the
television show "Scrubs", in which a white man asks a black man for
advice on dating black women, and the black man says, "The only
difference between black women and white women is that when a black
woman asks you if her dress makes her butt look big, you say, 'Hell
yeah.'"

Therefore, if halakhah discussed davka distraction with regard to
doctors, I suspect that's only because in that specific case,
distraction is what the doctors had, case closed, no further
discussion. Shu"tim only answer the question that was asked, and since
no one asked about the laws of tzniut regarding Mauritanian male
converts to Judaism, no one answered that question (viz. that he has
hergel to thin women but that fat women are an issue of hirhur for
him, no matter how much clothing they wear.)

I think that if we try to limit the laws of tzniut to only what the
Gemara says, it results in absurdities. Sexuality is so obviously
dependent on time and place, that it makes a mockery of the Torah to
say that the sexual preferences of Biblical (or Talmudic) men are set
in stone for the halakhah, for all time, even if sexuality changes.
Given that the rishonim discussed hergel and hirhur, why not run with
the concept, and take it as far as we can? I agree that we aren't
Qaraites, and that we have to do what the Talmud says, but here, the
rishonim have allowed us to read the Talmud as offering time-bound
sociology-driven "advice". What's good enough for the rishonim is good
enough for me. I don't see myself as rejecting the Talmud's list of
ervah; I rather see myself as accepting the rishonims' reframing of
the Gemara's list, recasting it in terms of time-bound "advice".

(By the way: Rabbi Marc Angel's new book, Maimonides, Spinoza and Us:
Toward an Intellectually Vibrant Judaism, explicitly declares all the
laws of tzniut to be "advice". All the same, Rabbi Angel has told me
privately that if there IS hirhur, then it IS assur. He told me that
he is NOT giving a "heter", only a framework for understanding the
laws of tzniut in a new way. Also, hirhur for women is prohibited no
less than for men; women are prohibited to listen to men sing,
according to him, no less than men are prohibited to listen to women
sing. He IS upholding the laws of tzniut, albeit in his own way. In
his book Losing the Rat Race, Winning at Life, he has harsh things to
say about women who dress scantily.)

In other words: I'd say there's a d'oraita law to avoid hirhur, but
that the precise definition of "hirhur" depends on time and place. The
Gemara told us only about ITS time and place, but not necessarily
ours.

Michael Makovi

*Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky^ (Emes LeYaakov Parshas Yechi page 237):* A 
practical example of zealousness which is not based on a correct reading 
of the halacha is found in the following question. A person has the 
choice of marrying a Jewish woman who doesn't observe the laws of family 
purity or a non-Jewish woman. Which is preferable? A student who has not 
properly served an apprenticeship with an experienced posek will say 
that it is obvious that the person should chose to marry the non-Jewish 
woman. That is because sexual relations with a nidah is punished by 
kares while sexual relations with a non-Jew is only a violation of a 
negative commandment of the Torah which is not punished by kares. The 
truth is not this way. Rambam (Hilchos Issurei Bi'ah 12:7-8) states that 
even though sexual relations with a non-Jewish maidservant is only a 
rabbinic prohibition he rules that, "this sin even though it is not 
punished by capital punishment from the court should not be viewed 
lightly. That is because there is a loss associated with sexual 
relations with a non-Jew which you don't find in the violation of all 
the other prohibited sexual relations. That loss is that the son from 
the other prohibited sexual relations is still his son in every respect 
and is considered a Jew. That is true even if the child is a mamzer. In 
contrast the son from a non-Jewish woman is not his son.... This sexual 
relationship with a non-Jewish woman will cause him to turn away from 
G-d and to attach himself to non-Jews. - from whom G-d has deliberately 
separated us so that we can be close to G-d... " It is clear from this 
that the person should chose the relationship with the Jewish woman even 
though she doesn't observe the laws of family purity.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100207/15278413/attachment-0001.htm>

RDE citing Rambam: 
> The truth is not this way. Rambam (Hilchos Issurei Bi'ah 12:7-8)
> states that even though sexual relations with a non-Jewish maidservant
> is only a rabbinic prohibition he rules that, "this sin even though
> it is not punished by capital punishment from the court should not be
> viewed lightly. That is because there is a loss associated with sexual
> relations with a nonJew which you don't find in the violation of all
> the other prohibited sexual relations.
 
My question -- which is essentially academic -- is this a meta-Halachic
consideration or straight basic Halachah?

IOW If Meta-Halachah, I would see this as saying:

"We're more concerned in the harm done to the klall than to the
prat". Meaning to the community at large vs. To the individual.


Whereas it it's straight Halachah, then we're saying: "the harm to
the individual could be worse by marrying an eino-y'hudis -- w/o even
considering the damage to the community."

KT
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 39
**************************************

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..."