Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 104

Wed, 21 Apr 2010

• 1. Re: HaRav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik on Saying Hallel on Yom Ha’Atzma’ut (Yitzchok Levine)
• 2. Re: Who First Said It? 7 - Mourning during Sefirah (Allan Engel)
• 3. Re: Lo Plug (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 4. Rema's Meta-Halachah? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 5. Revering Mother and Father (Yitzchok Levine)
• 6. [Hirhurim - Musings] Taking Bribes (Yitzchok Levine)
• 7. Re: HaRav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik on Saying Hallel on Yom Ha?Atzma?ut (Yaakov Ellis)
• 8. Re: Avodah] HaRav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik on Saying Hallel on Yom, Ha?Atzma?ut (David Riceman)
• 9. Re: SA O"Ch 489:9 (Saul Mashbaum)
• 10. Re: dal dal dal (Joshua Meisner)
• 11. Re: Who First Said It? 7 - Mourning during Sefirah (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 12. What Was R Akiva doing & Thinking whilst this plague decimated his Talmidim (Meir Rabi)
• 13. Re: What Was R Akiva doing & Thinking whilst this plague decimated his Talmidim (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Who First Said It? 7 - Mourning during Sefirah (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)

At 01:57 PM 4/20/2010, Ben Waxman wrote:
>Like many stories of the Rav, there are different versions from 
>different years and different sources. At Maimonides they said 
>Hallel. In Nefesh HaRav, Rav Schechter writes that the Rav felt that 
>saying half Hallel was OK.

Someone else questioned the validity of this also. At his suggestion
I contacted Rabbi Shalom Carmy of YU who was a very close talmid of
Rav Soloveitchik. He referred me to his article Teacher Not a Spokesman
that was published in Mentor of Generations: Reflections of Rabbi Joseph
B. Soloveitchik by Zev Eleff. In it Rabbi Carmy wrote


Hallel on Yom haAtzmaut


As Chairman of the RCA Halakha Commission, the Rav, in 1953 penned a
responsum regarding the reading of Hallel on Yom haAtzmaut. He endorsed
reading the mizmorei Tehillim that comprise Hallel if the community wanted
to on the morning of Yom haAtzmaut. He strictly prohibited reciting a
berakha on the Hallel. He also expressed reservations about reading these
chapters at night, but did not advocate risking controversy over this
practice. Subsequently, in several shiurim, he reiterated his objection
to the berakha. At YU he was observed participating in minyanim that
recited Hallel.

It has recently been alleged that on these occasions the Rav did not
recite Hallel, but only pretended so as not to give offense. Offhand this
contradicts the written record. There is no evidence that the Rav changed
his mind on the subject. The argument that he had second thoughts about
the religious significance of the State of Israel does not hold water,
since the Rav's Zionism was not rooted in messianic speculation or in
illusory expectations for the religious transformation of the governing
elites, but rather in the success of Israel in defending Jewish lives
and facilitating vibrant religious institutions.

It is possible to resolve this contradiction. Perhaps the Rav held a
siddur in front of his face and pretended to go along with the Hallel at
night. Perhaps he was even present where the berakha was recited and chose
not to protest. In 1978 he was asked his opinion during morning minyan
in the dormitory, and when the hazzan prefaced Hallel with the berakha,
he walked out. However, this open show of displeasure may have resulted
from the fact that his ruling had been solicited and then flouted. (The
person responsible later insisted there had been a misunderstanding.)

You can check this for yourself by going to http://books.google.com/books
and then putting in Mentor of Generations and searching for Carmy. Then
go to page 243 in the list that comes up. Almost all of Rabbi Carmy's
article is there.

Yitzchok Levine

Further to this debate, the Mechaber (493:1) says:

?????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?"? ?????

*Nohagim shelo lissa isha bein pesach le'atzeres ad lag laomer*

What's Atzeres needed for in that sentence?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100420/81044b57/attachment-0001.htm>

> And not just that, but don't most decide tzeis on shabbas to allow
> for some tosefes shabbas?
> And the one that really gets me....

Gets to me too

BUT if it's done for POLICY reasons and not halachic reasons then rabbis
will do it anyway.

Why? They may be chosheish that people might learn to end the d'oraisso
Shabbos early based upon when the taanis ended.

Atu b'amei ho'oretz asqinan? Yes! That's why AISI - learned people
will chafe at these policies as unnecessary.

The solution? Have rabbis broadcast that taaniyos are more lenient
than shabbos and therefore may be ended a tad earlier - except for YK
[definitely] and maybe even 9 Av.

MY 2 cents
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Earlier I posted that Rema had state in Hilchos Sh'chita siman 1 that
    "Kol efshar l'varruei - m'varirin" 

And that this seems to be treated as policy in Kashrus - IOW a
meta-Halachic principle.

Now Fast-forward to Hilchos Gittin Rema EhE 130:11
    "V'chol davar... Ki ein likaneis lisfeiqos l'chatcheelah.."

Translation:
    And any matter where this a slight doubt as how to write it is
    not proper at the outset to sign it - because one should not at the
    outset enter [into] doubtfuls without a [compelling] need.

If l'chatchila avoiding s'feiqos re: gittin is in reality also
meta-Halachah that is therefore applicable to other venues, it would
explain a lot.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

The following are selections from RSRH's commentary on Vayikra 19

3 You must each revere his mother and his father, 
and keep My Sabbaths; I am God, your God.

Revering mother and father and sanctifying Shabbos
educate the Jew to the holiness of life ? from the day he is born
to the day he dies. Yiras Em v'Av is the first step toward Kedusha.

The essence of Yirah is obedience: subordinating one?s will to the
will of the one to whom Yirah is directed.

In our Commentary on the mitzvah of Kibud Av v'Em in the Ten Commandments
(Shemos 20:12) we analyzed the significance of parents, the
significance that gives them their prominent place in the Torah. Parents
convey to their children not only physical existence, but also the Jewish
mission. They transmit to the next generation Jewish history and Torah
from Heaven?s hand. Hence, it is not the good that parents do for their
children, but the mission given to the parents concerning their children
that is the basis of the mitzvah of Kibud Av v'Em. He who honors his father
and his mother honors God and His revelation in history and in the
Torah.

Here, in the chapter on Kedusha, the duty to obey parents is emphasized.
Subordination of the child?s will to the parents? will, nullification
of the child?s will because of his parents? will, is the first training toward
self-control. Self-control will release the young person from the fetters
of his baser instincts and give him mastery over the impulses of his
will; it will free the Divine forces in man and lead him to moral freedom.
This constitutes the whole essence of the character of the Kadosh.

Here, Scripture does not say terah and teshmor, in the singular ? as
in the Ten Commandments ? but teraoo and teshmaroo. Not only individuals
are to fulfill these two fundamentals of Jewish morality; rather, Kibud Av V'Em
and Shabbos are to leave their imprint on the whole Jewish national
character. Because of them, God becomes our God; through them, our
homage to God is made manifest. They are the two pillars of the holiness
of Jewish life. As long as these pillars are in place, there is a basis for
our very relationship to God ? and God says of 
us: Ani Hashem Elokechem. Experience,
too, teaches us that when one of these two pillars falls, the
other falls also. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100420/430c491e/attachment-0001.htm>

Please see http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2010/04/taking-bribes.html

I remember from one of Rav Rakeffet's lectures on the Rav (his "Torah
she'baal Peh on the two volume set that he authored) that the Rav's reaction
on this occasion was not so much because of Hallel, but because the students
also recited the "Od haYom beNov" hafTarah, on a klaf, after Torah reading
(YH in that year fell on a Monday or Thursday). I can't remember if it was
with a beracha or not. But according to my recollection of Rav Rakeffet's
lecture, it was this disdain for the regular seder haTefillah (in addition
to doing it in front of the Rav without consulting him) which prompted the
Rav's shiur later on that day. (Apologies but I cannot remember the exact
shiur - it is from this series: http://j.mp/bYEvtH).

Yaakov Ellis

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Yitzchok Levine
<Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu>wrote:

> At 01:57 PM 4/20/2010, Ben Waxman wrote:
> >Like many stories of the Rav, there are different versions from
> >different years and different sources. At Maimonides they said
> >Hallel. In Nefesh HaRav, Rav Schechter writes that the Rav felt that
> >saying half Hallel was OK.
>
> Someone else questioned the validity of this also. At his suggestion
> I contacted Rabbi Shalom Carmy of YU who was a very close talmid of
> Rav Soloveitchik. He referred me to his article Teacher Not a Spokesman
> that was published in Mentor of Generations: Reflections of Rabbi Joseph
> B. Soloveitchik by Zev Eleff. In it Rabbi Carmy wrote
>  <http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100420/b53c401f/attachment-0001.htm>

RYL citing HEB:

<<Now, this is not to say that Rav

Soloveitchik had a different opinion in earlier years or in later 
years (we do not know either way)--but it is to say that someone was 
not following his Rebbe if he knew what his opinion was at that 
time--and still recited Hallel in place of Tachanun in order to make 
his own personal statement.  On the other hand, if one's final 
Halachic authority is the Rabbanut, his practice should be 
different.  This ruling will be different than that of the 
Badatz-Yerushalayim.  What does your ultimate Rabbinic authority 
say?  A person must look upwards for answers--not to himself, 
downwards or sideways.>>

I don't understand how the conclusion in the final sentence follows from
the story.  The halacha is very clear that one may pasken differently from
one's rebbe, and there are many such instances in Hazal, rishonim, and
aharonim.

David Riceman

>>
To this very day many/most Nusach Ashkenaz shuls make kiddush on Friday
night,
despite the mechaber's opinion.
>>

The Mechaber had some success in having his view on Kiddush in shul on
Friday night accepted among Nusach Ashkenaz communities: this practice is
virually unknown in EY.

Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100420/b817cc6b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 9:57 PM, <Saul.Z.New...@kp.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> so you are  proposing  that  a poor man loads  up his  family  with
>  probably little  tzeidah laderech  to  shlep them  to stay who knows  where
> , probably out in the strets, since there is no free room at the inn,


All lodging in Yerushalayim is gratis.  See Rambam Hil. Beis HaBechira 7:14,
quoting Megillah 26a.



Joshua Meisner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100420/f186598d/attachment-0001.htm>

allan.en...@gmail.com
> Further to this debate, the Mechaber (493:1) says:
> ?????? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?"? ?????
> Nohagim shelo lissa isha bein pesach le'atzeres ad lag laomer What's
> Atzeres needed for in that sentence?

As per my posted hypothesis:

A. The entire period was originally treated as one, and then sub-divided
   later by reading Pras Atzeres into it [what I would term retrofitting]

B. It may have been motivated by the onerous nature of having one-seventh
   of the year off-limits, and so a qula was needed.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Reb Micha tailored my query
>: As per historians?
>: Fighting Rome

> As I noted about a month back, R' Hai Gaon also translated "askera"
> (Yevamos 62b) as "sicarii" (sing: sicarius), a kind of dagger used by
> a lower rank of Roman soldier.

> So, it's not just the historians.

But I asked this according to the traditions that appear to be the common
Yeshivishe perspective, it was due to the fact that they did not accord
one another the respect they ought to have.

But even according to R Hai, I wonder how to learn the Peshat in the
Gemara that does clearly mention something to do with their failing to
meet Gd's high standards.

And let us say that there was a military campaign and the Talmidim
did participate, who and what criteria were used to determine when the
campaign should cease. Was it a conscious decision to fight till the
last man?

What did Chazal wish to achieve by commemorating this as a permanent
fixture in our calendar?

Best,
Rabbi Meir G. Rabi
please visit http://www.kosherveyosher.com.au/modx/index.php

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 03:02:52PM +1000, Meir Rabi wrote:
: But I asked this according to the traditions that appear to be the common
: Yeshivishe perspective, it was due to the fact that they did not accord
: one another the respect they ought to have.

How does that answer change whether the question is:
- Why did HQBH send a plague through R' Aqiva's talmidim (eg Rashi)?
or
- Why did HQBH let the war effort fail?

In fact, according to R' Hai Gaon, it would seem we are discussing the
entire reason by Bar Kokhva failed, and thus why we weren't ready for
the geulah yet. (And still aren't, unless something happens between my
typing and the next digest being sent out.)

BTW, no man has 24,000 talmidim muvhaqim. We should probably be thinking
of an educational system, or a R' Aqiva-led movement, rather than people
he taught personally.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 22nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 situation for the benefit of others?

allan.en...@gmail.com

Further to this debate, the Mechaber (493:1) says:
> Nohagim shelo lissa isha bein pesach le'atzeres ad lag laomer What's
> Atzeres needed for in that sentence?

OK I learned this again tonight with my Havrusa - covering
    SA-Rema
    Ba'er Hetev
    Shaarei T'shuvah 

My chavrusa read 
    "bein pesach le'atzeres ad lag laomer"
To Mean: 
    "Between Passover and Shavuos EXCEPT Lag laomer"

Which implies that the M'chabeir here is disagreeing with Rema and
exempting ONLY 33 of omer and NOT after. This not only disputes the
Rema's comment - it does not "jibe" with the m'chabeir's own position
in s'if 2!

Now this position is new to me, but there was a position in Ba'er Hetev 3
[eliyahu zutta besheim zqeino miprag] that exempts ONLY 33 omer and erev
Shavuos - which sounds a lot like this read of the M'chaber
There is also a dei'ah in ST 1 [Hinuch Beis Yehudah] saying that it is
only muttar to marry after 33 Omer as a snif l'haqeil under duress...

I'm still not convinced that my Havrusa's read is correct, nor do I
sense he is wrong - and so I will need to research further BEH in the BY
to see if I can determine his POV there.

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 104
***************************************

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..."