Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 105

Wed, 21 Apr 2010

• 1. Re: Lo Plug (T6...@aol.com)
• 2. Re: SA O"Ch 489:9 (Ben Waxman)
• 3. mechirat chametz (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: Who First Said It? 7 - Mourning during Sefirah (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Who First Said It? 7 - Mourning during Sefirah (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 6. Re: What Was R Akiva doing & Thinking whilst this plague decimated his Talmidim (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 7. HaRav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik on Saying Hallel on Yom Ha?Atzma?ut (Eli Turkel)
• 8. HaRav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik on Saying Hallel on Yom Ha'atzma'ut (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 9. Re: Who First Said It? 7 - Mourning during Sefirah (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Avodah] HaRav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik on Saying Hallel on Yom, Ha?Atzma?ut (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: HaRav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik on Saying Hallel on Yom Ha’Atzma’ut (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: HaRav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik on Saying Hallel on Yom Ha?Atzma?ut (Micha Berger)
• 13. kach nahag rav shach (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 14. Re: [Avodah]HaRav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik on Saying Hallel on Yom Ha’Atzma’ut (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 15. Re: HaRav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik on Saying Hallel on Yom Ha?Atzma?ut (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Out-of-Bounds? 1 Al n'tilas Yadayim (Micha Berger)

 
From: "Chana" _Ch...@Kolsassoon.org.uk_ (mailto:Ch...@Kolsassoon.org.uk) 

>>  And the one that really gets me.  That the Golders Green mikvah (and  
others
run by similar bodies) insist on using the same criteria for tzeis vis  a 
vis
allowing immersion as for Shabbas - even when they don't for taanis  
tzibbur.
As in, I have sat in the aforementioned mikvah on Shiva Aser B'Tamuz  and 
the
fast is deemed by all London authorities to go out at around 10.20pm,  and
yet they wouldn't allow the first immersion until 10.36pm!

Given  that the chashash (and it is only a d'rabbanan chashash at most)
relates to  the possibility of a husband and wife having relations before
tzeis (and then  after that the woman finding out she was tamei, and being
soser the shiva  nekiim), and once a woman immerses she still has to get out
of the mikvah,  get dressed and go home - why oh why they have to keep all 
of
us waiting.....  <<



>>>>>
 
Rather reminds one of the sons of Eli, doesn't it?
 
You should find out who is the rav or posek the mikva is using as its  
authority, and go have a chat with him.  You are only one of numerous women  
affected by the mikva's policy, but I guarantee that you are the most  
qualified  of all of them to have that little chat.....
 
I want to know what he answers you, and also, if you can discreetly snap it 
 with your cellphone, I want to see a picture of the expression on his face 
when  he realizes that the disgruntled yiddene in his office is no mean 
talmid  chacham...!
 
 

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

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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100420/9cb9f3ce/attachment-0001.htm>

Was this because of the Beit Yosef or Talmidei HaGra?

Ben
  ----- 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Saul Mashbaum 


  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/20100421/aa8e63ff/attachment-0001.htm>

> I have always been disturbed by those that sell
> the chametz inside the walls of pots but not the dishes/pots themselves.
> Would that hold up in a secular court?
>

'Tarry a little, there is something else.
This bond doth give thee here no jot of blood;
The words expressly are "a pound of flesh." ' >>

Precisely, the question is whther shylock's contract would hold
up in a modern court - not in a play

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 04:31:52PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: A Seeing these texts 
...

I fail to see relevence one way or the other...

: B Learning Elu M'galchin and finding the common denominator between ChhM
:   and Aveilus [which btw exludes music]

Music is a later development. The notion of live music outside the
context of a party was to rare for our ancestors to build a minhag
around it one way or the other.

Certainly after the consensus that this is about aveilus.

But in any case, the similarity is there -- how does that suggest
there was a crossover?

: C Noticing the lack of sweeping aveilus in any early sources - rather
:   finding a defined subset.

There is equally a lack of sweeping ChM as well.

: D Factoring in the Arizal's 48 day issur tispores

Which his talmid tells us was due to R' Aqiva's talmidim.

: E Noting the term in KSA as "k'tzas aveilus" and NOT total aveilus

This is similar to C... It isn't total ChM either. So, why would the
language "ketzas aveilus" push it *further* from aveilus?

IOW, in B you show that the two are similar, and therefore making a
guess without a source is iffy. In C&E you appear to be assymetrically
looking at the gap between omer and aveilus, but not between omer and ChM.
In D&E the source itself is associated with aveilus -- either by a talmid
or directly.

We have a Zohar, which as far as we can tell doesn't even reach the
reasoning in the Peri Eitz Chaim, which links tispores to preparing
for Shavuos. But by the time tispores was added to the original minhag
of not getting married, that original minhag was already spoken of in
terms of aveilus. So it's not evidence from before the change.

Therefore, why bring up ChM? What suggests ChM more than aveilus, and
then doing so with enough weight to open the question of the age of the
accepted sevara?

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?

>: C Noticing the lack of sweeping aveilus in any early sources - rather
>:   finding a defined subset.

> There is equally a lack of sweeping ChM as well.?

Ein hachi nami

Here we see that we cannot even undrstand ech other - how can we possibly
inderstand Gmara?

As I have explained ad nauseum if a subset of chhm was instituted ADDING
ON would be retrofitting!

What was suggested above was this was somehow implicit that since I said
ChHm is the proximate cause so adding on to THAT makes sense somehow

It doesn't

What makes sense is leaving it alone as it was - whatever the takkanah
was and NOT revising it via any clever lamuds - unless it is needed.

> Music is a later development. The notion of live music outside the
> context of a party was to rare for our ancestors to build a minhag
> around it one way or the other.

My version of elu m'galchin has mkqonnenos metapchos etc.  

Music was used to wail as well as to dance.

I don't see any evidence that music went underground

Now mabe tosafos thought that there were zero musical instruments around
so that clapping on YT was muttar, but I don't even think he said that!

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Rabbi Meir G. Rabi meir...@gmail.com:
> What did Chazal wish to achieve by commemorating this as a permanent
> fixture in our calendar?

By the term "chazal" - are you referring to Hachmei Talmud?
Or are you using it so as to include Gaonim?


[Email #2. -mi]

This seems to beg the question:

How is aveilus observed during the middle of a war?

In Sefer Shmuel Shaul and Yonassan's deaths were mourned "after" the
dust cleared. But in those days it seems wars were just a battle or 2

In full-scale revolts against Rome circa 67-70 CE and again circa 132-135
it seems improbable that grown men were sitting shiva during the crisis
of war - women and chldren maybe.

I'm not sure exactly how aveilus was observed during the Black Death in
Europe or during WWII-sho'ah, or even during the 1919 influenza epidemic.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

<<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.>>

I have an article from HaRav Lichtenstein (in Hebrew - not on web that I know)
that discusses in depth the zionism of RYBS. He begings the article with the
comment that his opinion on Hallel with or wo a beracha is not relevant to
his opinions on zionism as that is a question of hilchot berachot.

His main point is that RYBS strongly favored zionism but mainly on a spritual
level (though I think jol didi dofek contradicts that). He mentions at
the end that
RYBS was very proud when RAL's son went into the Israeli army (hesder).

BTW I checked with someone who davened in Maimonides and he said that
RYBS always davened with a tallis over his head in a manner that one
could not see
what he was or wasnt saying (this is all year around)

-- 
Eli Turkel

RYE, quoting RARR): "the Rav's reaction
on this occasion [to walk out of the minyan on Yom Ha;atzmaut]was not so much because of Hallel, but because the students
also recited the "Od haYom beNov" hafTarah, on a klaf, after Torah reading."

I just had the occassion to discuss this on Shabbat with a very prominent
rav who had discussed this with RYBS, and he also said that it was the
haftorah, and not hallel or its bracha, that was the cause of the Rav's
walking out.

Joseph Kaplan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100421/b78ae312/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 04:32:23PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
:> Music is a later development. The notion of live music outside the
:> context of a party was to rare for our ancestors to build a minhag
:> around it one way or the other.

: My version of elu m'galchin has mkqonnenos metapchos etc.  

Which has nothing to do with when there was the first ban on music
during the omer. As you wrote at the top of this thread, Eilu meGalchin
predates any omer bans.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 02:33:21PM -0400, David Riceman wrote in reply
to a quote from the Hakhel Bulletin:
:>                       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.

I take it RDR means that he doesn't understand how the conclusion implied
in the second two last sentence, the rhetorical question, follows from
the story. (A discussion of talmidim of RYBS who do say Hallel on YhA.)

The last sentence, at least WRT halakhah and questions that revolve around
what I call QYT issues (Qedoshim tihyu, ve'asisa haYashar vehaTov),
is certainly true. Of course in questions of religion, we must look to
our rabbeim.

(Note that my "at least WRT..." intentionally keeps the conversation away
from "daas Torah" issues. Also, "our rabbeim" isn't asserting that we
try to get a consensus of "the gedolim". Each of us believes in "asei
lekha rav", no?)

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?

elitur...@gmail.com:
> I have an article from HaRav Lichtenstein (in Hebrew - not on web that I
> know) that discusses in depth the zionism of RYBS. He begings the article
> with the comment that his opinion on Hallel with or wo a beracha is not
> relevant to his opinions on zionism as that is a question of hilchot
> berachot.

And a chaveir of mine who learned by the Rov for many years said
"zionism? What Zionism? The Rov never talked about it in shiur!"

FWIW this fellow is a member of Breuer's

As Dr. Lamm noted, after the Rov's p'tira the right will claim him and
so too the left

Now the Zionists claim him and so too the anti-zionists.

Talk about "A Man for all Seasons"

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 04:50:58PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: And a chaveir of mine who learned by the Rov for many years said
: "zionism? What Zionism? The Rov never talked about it in shiur!"

And he never headed Mizrachi and he didn't write Fir Derashes (or the
expanded Hebrew version, "Chameish Derashos")?

Your chaveir can claim what he wants, but what does that have to do with
RYBS's position?

He could evolve a new shitah out of RYBS's, but that's not what he's
claiming...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IC1swo
gp6gc/S84c5TsT1yI/AAAAAAAAE3c/gKMGZkJPvxU/s1600/5+%D7%90%D7%99%D7%99%D7%A8.
JPG
at one point , the hanhagot were different, the perception was different , 
even future anakei olam were different.....

.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100421/90753d42/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha
> And he never headed Mizrachi and he didn't write Fir Derashes (or the
> expanded Hebrew version, "Chameish Derashos")?

Yes if one sticks to history and sources one realizes this is senseless

HOwever if one deconstructs based upon affilation to retrofit a
revisionist POV back into time, then what's the probem?

If he holds Halachiclly that Zionism is bad, and so he reads anti-Zionism
back into RYBS's bio, what's wrong with that?

He is deconstructing what was, and reconstructung so as to fit what
he thinks RYBS SHOULD BE - or shuould HAVE BEEN.

Like assigning the youngest son for the qustions of the mishnah based upn
OUR perceptions rather than as originally intended - or construed by EG
Rambam
Rashi
Rashbam
Shulchan Aruch
- The latter 3 posit the child asks "why mozgim kos sheini'

Frankly I see this going on when s'fira. - a Gaonoic creature - is
revisionistically assigned a Talmudic valence. EG Hoq Yaakov in O"ch
493 re: minhaggim of s'fira states - in a safeiq don't be machmir,
it's only a minhag!

KT
RRW

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 05:13:43PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Yes if one sticks to history and sources one realizes this is senseless
: HOwever if one deconstructs based upon affilation to retrofit a
: revisionist POV back into time, then what's the probem?

There are other possibilities between the classical academics pursuit of
what was, as determined as clean-slate as possible, and the
deconstruction's pursuit of what the text says to me.

In particular, TSBP is ba'al peh, an oral tradition. It is /supposed/ to
evolve. Codification is only "eis laasos Lashem heifeiru Sorasekha".

Mesorah is a living tradition of a development of ideas. The Oral
Torah is oral, a dialog across the generations. If we see a quote in
the gemara from Rav Yochanan, we might be curious about the historical
intent of Rav Yochanan. But in terms of Torah, important to us than
what R' Yochanan's original intent is what R' Ashi thought that
intent was, which in turn can only be understood through the eyes
of what the Rosh and the Rambam understood R' Ashi's meaning to be,
which in turn can only be understood through the eyes of the Shaagas
Aryeh and R' Chaim Brisker. That is the true meaning, in terms of
Torah, of Rav Yoachanan's statement. (Quoted from my blog entry at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/08/postmodernism-and-mesorah.shtml>.)

But your friend is making a historical claim, not a halachic one. He's
not playing the TSBP game, but denying a historical event.


Second, even a deconstructionist can't make claims by denying the
existance of some of the texts before him. That's just dishonesty.

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?

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 04:59:10PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Im kein, is this student justified in his convictions to say this
: brachah and be someich on the Rambam?

: Or is this student out-of-bounds for saying a brachah based upon what
: we know - that this Rambam is not followed in practice?

Here it turns out the student might have unitentionally been mechavein
to the Gra, which might give him more breathing room. However, we're
asking here about process, not results. So his luck doesn't matter.
But it does allo us to reflect on a thornier question -- what gave the
Gra the right to make such pesaqim?

I think this is a good place to reiterate something I wrote in a comment
on Nishma Blog. Blog entry title, "Minhag Yisroel vs. Gra: 2 Matzot vs.
3 Matzot"
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2010/04/minhag-yisroelvs-gra-2-ma
tzot-vs-3.html
RRW was exploring this quote from RHSchachter (taken from torahweb.org):
    A matter of halacha which has been accepted for centuries can not be
    overturned, unless one can demonstrate that there simply was an
    error involved from the very outset.

In any case, here was the bit I want to repeat here:
    I guess I'm trying to express three levels of disagreement:

    1- You are outside the range of valid interpretations.
    2- Your interpretation is valid (eilu va'eilu) but flawed.
    3- Your interpretation is less valuable than mine. Not flawed, but
       lacking.

    The Brisker position about the Gra's halachic changes is that he
    wouldn't change practice over a "less valuable" issue. But that
    doesn't mean he was declaring the accepted pesaq as "invalid",
    as outside the realm of Torah.

RBHecht correctly noted that my portrayal makes it looks like these are
three crisply defined categories, and it may be more accurate to contider
them landmarks on a "spectrum of perception".

My question here and about all the "Out-of-bounds" posts is getting
clarity as to which bounds we're discussing. Is it (numbers
corresponding to the above):
    1- Is is outside the range of valid interpretations?
    2- Is this student's stance on this halakhah valid but flawed?

And if we are saying it's outside the range, at what point do we say
that he embraced a methodology of legal decisionmaking that is so outside
the rules of pesaq that it reflects on the gavra, not just his position
WRT a berakhah before hand-washing? How many such rulings? How big
(deciding something unique about berakhos isn't the same as allowing
something that everyone else says produces mamzeirim)?

What are the "bounds" we're looking for?

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?


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 105
***************************************

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..."