Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 118

Wed, 12 May 2010

• 1. Creation eternal heretical - hashkafa question (Hankman)
• 2. Re: Creation eternal heretical - hashkafa question (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should dress (David Riceman)
• 4. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should dress (Zev Sero)
• 5. Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should dress (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Re: question regarding a Shach (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: `Eruv hatzerot for hotel hallway? (Danny Schoemann)
• 8. Avos - milsei dachasidusa or not (was [Areivim] more RCA reaction) (Hankman)
• 9. Byzantium (David Riceman)
• 10. Re: Donor Kids and Adoption (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 11. Re: Donor Kids and Adoption (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should dress (Chana Luntz)
• 13. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should dress (Micha Berger)
• 14. Donor Kids and Adoption (Chana Luntz)
• 15. Re: Donor Kids and Adoption (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Byzantium (Zev Sero)
• 17. Derech Eretz Kadmah LaTorah (Yosef Skolnick)
• 18. Gedolim Sign Letter Against Worms in Fish (Yitzchok Levine)
• 19. Re: Tefillas Mincha Voluntary? (Moshe Y. Gluck)

I have been bothered by an idea that is not clear in my mind and could be
on a fault line between heretical and permissible, or could actually be
emes, but I am not sure where it lies or even if it is well thought out. If
anyone can shed some light ...

Basic hashkafa dictates the fundamental reason for the creation and
existence of the universe is the desire by HKB"H to exercise his hatava
which requires a recipient. HKB"H is outside of zeman and He and his ratzon
are never changing and "eternal" [for lack of a better word - quotes
because this word implies time]. This requires that the existence of
creation be always present [to comply with His ratzon to be maitiv] and
"eternal" despite parshas Bereishis that seems to imply otherwise?

Perhaps this is delving into areas beyond human ken that we should not ask
about [ma lefnim uma lachor]. Perhaps this is part of the reason not to
translate the word bereishis in the sense of chronological order but as
"beshvil reishis" as per rashi and the medroshim. What bothers me is that
this notion leads to an "eternal universe" which seems rather "heretical."
Perhaps this is part of the Rambam's thinking in Moreh when he says he
could live with the idea [as per Aristo] of an eternal universe [ie, it is
not heretical]? If the above is true, then being "eternal" is not a unique
property of HKB"H since the universe shares that quality, the essential
difference is who is the primal cause [borei] and what is the consequence
[nivra]. Therefore "bereishis" is telling us not of a beginning but of who
is the primal cause. But we creatures who per force are subject to time
must see bereishis from a temporal perspective.  Is it possible to
understand Bereishis in this manner or is
  this creeping into the heretical? Can anyone be marchiv on these thoughts or are they off the derech?

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100512/366fb85c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:36:28PM -0400, Hankman wrote:
: Basic hashkafa dictates the fundamental reason for the creation and
: existence of the universe is the desire by HKB"H to exercise his hatava
: which requires a recipient. HKB"H is outside of zeman and He and his
: ratzon are never changing and "eternal" [for lack of a better word -
: quotes because this word implies time]. This requires that the existence
: of creation be always present [to comply with His ratzon to be maitiv]
: and "eternal" despite parshas Bereishis that seems to imply otherwise?

: Perhaps this is delving into areas beyond human ken that we should not
: ask about [ma lefnim uma lachor]. Perhaps this is part of the reason not
: to translate the word bereishis in the sense of chronological order but
: as "beshvil reishis" as per rashi and the medroshim...

This is a Jewish version of Plato's concept of the eternity of the
universe.

Interestingly, the Rambam calls Aristo's version "against all our prophets
and sages" but never says the same against Plato's theory. So perhaps
it isn't kefirah to say the First Cause comes before the universe in a
manner other than time.

There are even rishonim and academic scholars who believe that the
Rambam himself held of this theory. See Moreh 2:30, where he explains the
sheishes yemei bereishis as being logical stages, not a sequence in time.

R' Dr Meir Triebitz discusses the topic. (My daughter tells me RMT
has a degree from Juilliard School of Music and a PhD in Mathematical
Physics from Princeton, aside from teaching at Machon Shlomo, publishing
Reshimu, and his podcast "from an undisclosed location in Yerushalaim"
at hashkafacircle.com .) Leshitaso, he believes the Rambam's position
was dialectical. For the hamon am, who wouldn't get the dialectic, the
Moreh emphasizes that creation ended millenia ago. However, RMT argues
that the Rambam also believes in Platonic eternity.

See also Moreh 2:13:
    Those who follow the Law of Moses, our Teacher, hold that the whole
    Universe, i.e., everything except God, has been brought by Him into
    existence out of non-existence. In the beginning God alone existed,
    ...
    We consider time a thing created: it comes into existence in the
    same manner as other accidents, and the substances which form the
    substratum for the accidents. For this reason, viz., because time
    belongs to the things created, it cannot be said that God produced
    the Universe in the beginning. Consider this well; for he who does
    not understand it is unable to refute forcible objections raised
    against the theory of Creatio ex nihilo. If you admit the existence
    of time before the Creation, you will be compelled to accept the
    theory of the Eternity of the Universe. For time is an accident
    and requires a substratum. You will therefore have to assume that
    something [beside God] existed before this Universe was created,
    an assumption which it is our duty to oppose.

To the Rambam, then, the essential bit about ex nihilo is that HQBH is
the sole Cause. Not that there was a time of nihilo -- according to the
Rambam that makes no sense since time itself must be nivra. Continuing...

    This is the first theory, and it is undoubtedly a fundamental
    principle of the Law of our teacher Moses; it is next in importance
    to the principle of God's unity. Do not follow any other theory.
    Abraham, our father, was the first that taught it, after he had
    established it by philosophical research. He proclaimed, therefore,
    "the name of the Lord the God of the Universe" (Gen. xxi. 33); and
    he had previously expressed this theory in the words, "The Possessor
    of heaven and earth" (ibid. xiv. 22).

So, RMT argues, we see the Rambam understands "qonei shamayim va'aretz"
as referring to Platonic eternity and the essence of what Avraham
brought to the table above Malchitzedeq's theology.

More than that, he argues that nihilo is an existential thing. Until
there is a human being who could contemplate the world as it isn't, we
can't really define the existence of absence of the world. At no point
in time was there an alternative.

And once he makes the contrast between the world as it is and reality
without Creation as being existential, there is room to speak of
dialectics between two positions rather than a contradiction.

Creation 6,000 years ago vs G-d as Eternal Cause of an Eternal Universe
is thus explained as a matter of perspective.

Not that I buy all of the above. However, if RMT sees the Rambam that
way, I can't call it kefirah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 43rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           good for all mankind?

Me:

<<We see that she went to (in the immortal words of AA Milne) "the edge 
of  the town" while dressed up.>>

RMB:

<<(We're discussing Taanis 23b, the maaseh begins on amud A.)

The words are "ki mata lemasa". While "masa" does sometimes mean
"hometown", it usually means one's estate (home and yards). The meaning
you presume is a derived one, and the it would have been more natural to
call the town a kefar or an ir (depending on how urban Aba Chilkiyah's
town was). So, one can't "see" from this quote that she went beyond the
gate of their property.>>

Except that Abba Hikiyah was a day laborer (he says this explicitly later
on), so it's unlikely that he had an estate, and the next line in the story
is "ki mata l'beisa" (when he got to the house), so it can't possibly mean
his house.  Furthermore, when he explains his actions at the end of the
story "kdei shelo etein einay b'isha aheres", what other woman would be in
a day laborer's yard?

David Riceman

David Riceman

Chana Luntz wrote:

> In any event, it would certainly have been better if instead of my using the
> example of a husband going away to midinas hayam, I had used the example of
> a husband who becomes insane and is in no position to appreciate his wife's
> tachshitim, as the same point could have been made, without entering into a
> complicated machlokus.

It's not at all obvious to me that a shoteh (and certainly a cheresh)
can't appreciate his wife's beauty.  On the contrary, it seems to me
that the most obvious reason why the BD does give the wife of a cheresh
or shoteh money for adornments is that it's assumed the husband *does*
like it, and would willingly give her the money if he were able to.
He may be off his nut, but he's not in a coma.  Thus I don't understand
the Hafla'ah's question.

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

At 03:33 PM 5/12/2010, Chana Luntz wrote:
>In any event, it would certainly have been better if instead of my using the
>example of a husband going away to midinas hayam, I had used the example of
>a husband who becomes insane and is in no position to appreciate his wife's
>tachshitim, as the same point could have been made, without entering into a
>complicated machlokus.
What is your basis for assuming that an insane man cannot appreciate 
his wife's tachshitim?   Can't a Schizophrenic appreciate beauty? 
What about a serial killer?

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100512/610490fc/attachment-0001.htm>

Ben Waxman wrote:
> This question has come up before but I'd like to get your input. The 
> Schach in YD 119:20 writes that someone who does not eat something 
> because of minhag avotav/haqpada can eat it when being hosted by someone 
> who does eat if "he sees a heter b'devar". What does that phrase mean? I 
> learned this with a friend and he thought that it meant something which 
> we all know is muttar, but have accepted not to eat it out of minhag 
> (e.g. kitniot). On this list, someone thought that it meant "not 
> insulting the host".

It certainly doesn't *mean* "not insulting the host", though that may be
the person's *motivation* for transgressing his usual custom.

It's also not talking about something like kitniyos, which nobody has
ever thought to be inherently assur; kitniyos is a gezera: we eschew
something we all agree is muttar, lest we come to eat something that
is definitely assur.   No, this se'if is talking about something that
the guest's tradition is to regard it as assur for everybody, and the
host's tradition is that it's muttar for everybody.

Hence the example of the Bnei Rhenus, the Rhineland Jews: in some parts
of the Rhineland they paskened that a certain part of the suet on the
belly was kosher, whereas in other parts they paskened like everybody
else, that it's treif.  From our POV the mattirim were definitely eating
treif, but we recognise that they had a legitimate POV of their own;
they didn't just make it up, they held like R Yonah who permitted it,
and they had every right to hold like him.  In the Rhineland the minhag
developed among the osrim that they would eat not just from the kelim
of the mattirim, but they would eat the meat and soup cooked with this
fat, leaving only the fat itself; the Ralbach says that a Polish Jew,
for instance, would not be allowed to do so.  He can eat from the kelim
(if the host cooked for himself), but not from a dish that contains the
chelev itself.

Modern examples might include those communities who don't agree with the
heter for chalav hacompanies, or those families who don't eat turkey.

Then we get to the bit you quoted.  Until now we've assumed that the
guest agrees with his minhag.  But suppose he doesn't.  Suppose he thinks
the halacha is like the mattirim, but he follows the issur anyway because
that is his local minhag and/or minhag avos.  In such a case, when he is
in a place where they permit it he is allowed to eat it.


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

>> If you stay in a hotel during Shabbat, in a place without an `eruv, do
>> you have to make an `eruv hatzerot in order to be able to walk <carry> through
>> the hallways?
>>
>> Michael Makovi

>My rabbi said this situation is more like a gigantic house with one
>ba'al ha-bayit in which you are renting one room, rather than like a
>common courtyard with multiple houses. As such, no `eruv is necessary.
>His answer is so obvious that I feel like an idiot now. :P
>
>Michael Makovi

Not that obvious - look it up in the Kitzur SA 94:14

It depends on how long you stay, whether you all eat together and if
there's an "owner" who lives in the hotel.

- Danny

RZS wrote (in Areivim):

The Torah itself has many comments about middos that are good, without
being mandatory.  Pirkei Avos is a whole mesechta of "milsei dachasidusa";
none of it is mandatory, but it's an indication within Torah of what is
right and wrong.  A person can ignore the whole Pirkei Avos "birshus
haTorah", and be a "naval".

CS responds:

While some may see Avos as you say a "milsei dachasidusa" others will not
agree. Rav Yechiel Meir Katz in his perek shiur last week said over from
the Gr"a that most of Avos is a d'Aureisa. In answer to the question about
the naming of Avos (why all other masechtos are named by their content
while Avos is not) he says that is to make just this point. As the gemara
tells us, one meaning of AV is that it is mefurash in Torah whereas a tolda
is not. He says that throughout Avos the Gr"a keeps pointing out the source
in the Torah for the opinions in Avos to show that they really are mefurash
in Torah and thus an av and hence d'Aureisa and not just a  "milsei
dachasidusa."

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100512/db0a0364/attachment-0001.htm>

Ibn Ezra in Yeshayahu 34:6 s.v. "B'Votzrah" says that Constantinople is 
less than a thousand years old.  Of course Byzantium was founded in 667 
B.C.E., so he was off by almost a millenium.  What is his source?

David Riceman

R' Micha Berger asked:
> But I don't understand how rov wouldn't apply -- it's a mi'ut
> delo shekhichah that the girl just happens to meet her biological
> brother.

You're thinking in terms of "kol d?parish meruba parish". Could it be that this case is considered "kavua", so that it is judged to be a 50/50 possibility?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 2000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4beb0c9b7d5853ff992st06vuc

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 08:15:31PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: You're thinking in terms of "kol d'parish meruba parish". Could it
: be that this case is considered "kavua", so that it is judged to be a
: 50/50 possibility?

I don't think a set that is leisa leqaman can have members that are
qavu'a. I think of qavu'ah as a situation that would have been a ruba
de'isa leqaman were it not that we had once known and pasqened about
the state of the members in the past.

E.g. three pieces of fat would be a ruba de'isa leqaman, but if we once
knew which one came from the treif store and now it got lost in the group,
it's qavu'ah.

But of course, I could be wrong.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 43rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           good for all mankind?

RYL writes:

> What is your basis for assuming that an insane man cannot appreciate
> his wife's tachshitim??? Can't a Schizophrenic appreciate beauty? What
> about a serial killer?

The gemora (48a) defines the two cases (the husband becoming insane or the
husband going to medinas hayam) as both being cases where he "yotzei" ie
goes out or away  - with the case of him going to medinas hayam as being a
case of yotzei medaas [one who leaves intentionally] and the one who becomes
insane as being yotzei shelo medaas [one who leaves unintentionally].  And
so is it used throughout the various discussions (for example, the point the
Haflah makes regarding there being no difference whether the husband goes
out intentionally or unintentionally).  The assumption clearly is throughout
that we are talking about a husband who sufficiently insane that he is no
longer living with her (with her being left as potentially a lifelong
agunah)

> YL

Regards

Chana

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 09:38:31AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
:> The words are "ki mata lemasa". While "masa" does sometimes mean
:> "hometown", it usually means one's estate (home and yards)...

: Except that Abba Hikiyah was a day laborer (he says this explicitly later 
: on), so it's unlikely that he had an estate, and the next line in the story 
: is "ki mata l'beisa" (when he got to the house), so it can't possibly mean 
: his house...

I would take it to mean the gate to his yard. That was the reason for my
parenthetic.

("Masa" as hometown, while exists, is not the only primary meaning -- it
derives from the more basic meaning of home, including yards. Therefore
this story can't be used as a proof. In terms of burden of proof, I
don't need to prove that I understood the gemara correctly as much as
just show that translating "masa" as town is the only possibility. As
long as it /could/ be correct, your proof is deflated.)

: story "kdei shelo etein einay b'isha aheres", what other woman would be in 
: a day laborer's yard?

Who said he would only look at other women in that very moment?
If he's happy with whom he has at home, he wouldn't look around when
away from it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 43rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           good for all mankind?

> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 12:53:28AM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote to
> Areivim:
> : I guess you are assuming that biological siblings are going to end up
> : mating and that their offspring will therefore be mamzerim. But is it
> the case
> : that the offspring of a brother and sister are mamzerim? ...

And RMB replies:

> Yes, they would be mamzeirim, even if it was beshogeig. The question I
> have is whether AID, even where the donor is Jewish, actually produces
> a halachic sibling. 

Isn't this precisely where the Ben Sira midrash is usually brought into the
discussion?  ie that Ben Sira was born from the seed of Yirmiyahu after he
had a bath and his daughter then later had a bath in the same bathwater and
conceived (see eg Maharil  in his lekutim), and yet Ben Sira would appear to
be considered a vlad kasher.  See for example the discussion in Yabiat Omer
chelek 2 Even HaEzer siman 1.  But he would also seem to be considered as
the son of Yirmiyahu, for so he is referred to in the various literature, eg
in the Maharil.

Of course if the donor is not Jewish, would not the problem go away?  While
one might prohibit children of different Jewish mothers and the same non
Jewish father marrying if you knew about it, on the same basis that related
converts are prohibited to marry, I would not have thought that, if they did
marry, the offspring would be mamzerim.

Isn't it like the question WRT surrogacy, whether
> the surrogate or the egg donor would be the halachic mother?

Seems slightly different to me, but similar questions do arise.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha



Regards

Chana

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:42:04PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: Isn't this precisely where the Ben Sira midrash is usually brought into the
: discussion? ...

That's about the child not being a mamzer, since there was no bi'ah
asurah. RMF invokes it in that context, but the Satmar Rav holds the
child would be as much a mamzer as if the union were bederekh bi'ah.

: Of course if the donor is not Jewish, would not the problem go away?

Which is why I phrased the Satmar Rav's position that way.

But here we're talking now about the child happening to meet another
child of that donor and marrying a genetic sibling. Would *their* child
(produced in the traditional way) be a mamzeir?

Mamzeirus, according to RMF and general consensus, requires a bi'ah
asurah as one of the preconditions. That doesn't mean paternity
requires bi'ah. Maybe it is determined by zera. That's the comparison
I was making to egg mother vs gestational mother in the case of
surrogacy.

If the donor isn't Jewish, then they aren't halachic siblings anyway.
But it's possible that if the donor is Jewish, even RMF would say the
grandchild is a mamzeir.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 43rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                           good for all mankind?

David Riceman wrote:
> Ibn Ezra in Yeshayahu 34:6 s.v. "B'Votzrah" says that Constantinople is 
> less than a thousand years old.  Of course Byzantium was founded in 667 
> B.C.E., so he was off by almost a millenium.  What is his source?

I assume that he assumed it was founded by Constantine.  He certainly
did *something* to it, but from a brief look at WP I can't tell exactly
what.  He vastly expanded it, but what was its size before he started?
If he took a small village and turned it into a city, then it's fair
enough to say that its real history starts then.


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

http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifehack/becoming-your-best-self.html

<http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifehack/becoming-your-best-self.html>It
appears we aren't the only people in the world who have a focus on self
improvement.  We are the only one that have a focus on torah though.  I
believe a decent explanation of Derech Eretz Kadmah LaTorah is that Derech
eretz is so pashut (in both senses) and that the torah is meant to refine
those sensitivities as well as often to redefine which ones we are supposed
to be concerned with.  It can't be that our entire existence is meant to
work on proper middos, that is supposed to be something that comes from
proper living. (meaning if our entire purpose is to refine our middos what
do we need to torah for, there are plenty of people working on living a
refined and decent life).  Now that we have been around for so long, that
focus has been lost and a small amount of time must be spent working on our
middos and to let our refinement happen over time.  We aren't meant to go to
a vaad and become perfect overnight.  That is not what the veadim are for!
The veadim are meant to be a means for which we can have a guided organic
growth.

If that doesn't make sense please ask.

Yosef Skolnick
Looking for a Computer Science summer or fall internship
516-690-SKOL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100512/88998c5d/attachment-0001.htm>

This is dated 4/25/10 and this is the first that I have heard about this.  YL

From http://tinyurl.com/2bh5elq
<https://www.5tjt.com/international-ne
ws/6941-breaking-news-gedolim-sign-letter-against-worms-in-fish.html>
;
Breaking News - Gedolim Sign Letter Against Worms in Fish
By 5TJT Staff
on Sunday, April 25, 2010

The 5TJT has just received word that this past Friday, Rav Elyashiv,
Rav Vosner, and Rav Karelitz have all signed upon a Kol Koreh declaring
the Anisakis worm to be completely forbidden even when it was found in
the flesh of fish.

The three Rabbinic leaders signed the letter after it was proven to
them beyond any doubt that the overwhelming majority of the Anisakis
worms enter the flesh of the fish through the viscera of the fish itself.
The Rabbis rejected the alternative reading of the Shulchan Aruch Chapter
84 that was promulgated by a number of Rabbis in America and England.
In that reading, the author of the Shulchan Aruch categorically states
that all worms found in the flesh are permitted to be consumed even if
it is known that the worms arrived in the flesh directly from the Mayaim
the guts of the fish.

This was the reading that Kadassiah in England and the OU in New York
were trying to fit into the Shulchan Aruch, remarked one Rabbi deeply
involved in the Anisakis controversy. The problem with the reading is
that it is not in line with the thinking of the Rishonim on the matter.

It is estimated that despite the written ruling which will be released
in the next day or two, it may take some time for the Kashrus agencies
to change their policies on the fish.

The letter was written at the behest of Rabbi Gershon Bess from the RCC
in Los Angeles, California. Earlier last week, Rabbi Bess visited Rabbi
Revachs laboratory in Beit Uziell. The laboratory found over sixty
Anisakis worms in one specimen of salmon.

The 5TJT had previously reported that there was little room to indicate
that the worms would be considered kosher in light of the evidence
that the worms do in fact migrate from the viscera. The previous
article listed which fish were permitted, and may be read at
<http://www.5tjt.com/featured-news/6889-fish-and-worms-the-bottom-lin
e.html>


[Email #2. -micha]

Has anyone seen the letter that is mentioned in the article at 
<https://www.5tjt.com/international-ne
ws/6941-breaking-news-gedolim-sign-letter-against-worms-in-fish.html>
;
[or <http://bit.ly/9Rfj8R>]
Gedolim Sign Letter Against Worms in Fish ?

I searched, but I could not find it. This is surprising to me.

YL

R' Liron Kopinsky:
I heard R' Yonasan Sacks (of YU) speak in LA a few months ago and he said
that he thinks we have a Kaddish before Maariv Shmone Esrei davka to be a
hefsek to show that we hold Maariv is "reshus" (whatever that means) and
therefore not required to be connected to Geula.
---------------


disagrees with it. Ayin Sham.

KT,
MYG



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 118
***************************************

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..."