Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 186

Tue, 19 Oct 2010

• 1. Re: New [Chabad] Ritual Bath Opens in Northern Tel Aviv (Harry Maryles)
• 2. Re: New [Chabad] Ritual Bath Opens in Northern Tel Aviv (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: New [Chabad] Ritual Bath Opens in Northern Tel Aviv (Gil Student)
• 4. Re: New [Chabad] Ritual Bath Opens in Northern Tel Aviv (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: New [Chabad] Ritual Bath Opens in Northern Tel Aviv (Zev Sero)
• 6. New [Chabad] Ritual Bath Opens in Northern Tel Aviv (Tal Moshe Zwecker)
• 7. Re: Truth and the Rambam (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: Truth and the Rambam (Zvi Lampel)
• 9. Stained Glass Windows (Joseph Kaplan)
• 10. Re: New [Chabad] Ritual Bath Opens in Northern Tel Aviv (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Stained Glass Windows (Arie Folger)
• 12. Re: Truth and the Rambam (David Riceman)
• 13. Re: Telling All of the Truth About Great Men (Danny Schoemann)
• 14. Re: When the Entire Cong Should Say Kaddish with the Mourner (Danny Schoemann)
• 15. Re: Telling All of the Truth About Great Men (Micha Berger)
• 16. Vten Tal Umatar (Saul Mashbaum)

On Mon, 10/18/10, Prof. Levine <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu> wrote [to Areivim]:
>  From http://tinyurl.com/29owmgg

>> Following approval from the Israeli government-sanctioned religious
>> council, a new ritual bath adhering to Chabad-Lubavitch standards opened
>> in the Northern Tel Aviv neighborhood of Hadar Yosef.

> Will someone please explain to me why the halachic standards that the
> rest of Orthodoxy follows are not good enough for Chabad? Indeed, what
> are the differences?

 From memory: 
?
Their method of Hashaka (connection -- which stems form the word Nishuk
-- to kiss) is diffferent than the rest of Klal Yisroel's. The problem
is one of Zochalin (flowing water) which Pasuls the Mikva.

The Eino Shuvim (usually rain water) of the Bor or 40 Seah is never
directly used for immersion. It is connected via a port to a clean
usually clorinated pool that is Mayim Shuvim (drawn water).

There is a Machlokes as to which is the better method, There are pluses
and minuses with each method: 1)The side by side that the rest of the
world uses or 2) the Bor Al Gabi Bor that the Shulchan Aruch HaRav uses.

I don't recall off hand the advantage of his method is (there is one I
just don't recall it) nor the disadvanage of Bor Kneged Bor ( again --
there is a disadbvantgae I just don't recall it) but the disadvantage
(which is why it is not universally used) is that many Psokim felt that
Hashaka via Bor Al Gabi Bor creates a situatioin of Zochalin -- which
Pasuls the Mikva.

Although the Metzius is not like that, we nevertheless are Choshseh for
that Shitah. The SA HaRav says there is absolutley no Zochalin and the
advantage of Bor Al Gabi Bor is therefore the preferable way of buildiung
a Mikva.

HM

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:18:20PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Will someone please explain to me why the halachic standards that the  
> rest of Orthodoxy follows are not good enough for Chabad? Indeed, what 
> are the differences?

Actually, the problem may be the reverse...

L insists on using bor al gabei bor, rather than the standard hashakah.
I don't think it's a matter of din or even halachic preference; rather,
like the straight-armed menoros, something the rebbe said became a
symbol of who they are. The Rebbe Rashab designed a bor-al-gabei-bor,
and now it's a Lub "thing". I only have it on say-so that there is no
actual halachic/hashkafic argument for the preference.

In a BAGB, the otzar is underneath the immersion pool. This keeps the
cold otzar from freezing the person in the miqvah, since cold water will
stay to the bottom. However, it also implies that there is less mixing of
waters than in other designs, making it an inferior design according to
some posqim (based on the Raavad's require "nosei se'ah venoteil se'ah"),
see the Shakh YD 201:63.

IOW, I do not know of an L reason (other than comfort and pride in one's
rebbe) to actually prefer a BAGB. I do know of halachic reasons for a
non-L to prefer going to another one. Although I do not know anyone who
says that BAGB is outright pasul.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

See this essay by R. Chaim Jachter in which he explains the issue:
http://koltorah.org/ravj/12-5%20The%20B
uilding%20and%20Maintenance%20of%20Mikvaot%20-%20Part%20Five.htm
[or http://bit.ly/aSlxvh -micha]

Gil Student

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 1:07:04PM EDT, I wrote:
: IOW, I do not know of an L reason (other than comfort and pride in one's
: rebbe) to actually prefer a BAGB...

I was since pointed to R SDB Levin's seifer on miqvah, which has an
online copy at <http://chabadlibrary.org/books/chasidim/mkvh>. In
particular, see ch. 5.

There is a haqpadah in the L sources for "miqvah a"g miqvah", although
I fail to see in that chapter what the perceived value is. R' Jachter,
in the article RGS cited, gives 3 acheivments:

1- There is no way for the caretaker to forget to open the hole between
the boros -- it's always open.

2- There is also no way for the water to be too low to reach the hole.

3- It satisfies the Raavad's requirement of rov / more than 20 se'ah of
the rainwater remianing in the bor hashaqah. (Not sure what he means if
the bor hashaqah holds 50 se'ah; does the Raavad still require >20 se'ah,
or >25?)

Interestingly, I saw #3 as a problem, a lack of mixing of water compared
to neshiqa as done before then.

R' Jachter cites the Divrei Chaim's objection that the miqvah is pasul
because "kataferes eino chibbur (Taharos 8:9) -- water running along
a slope doesn't count because (the DC holds) connections are only
side-to-side. And he gives defenses. I'm just noting the difference
between the objection to BAGB as I heard it, and the objection that
really appears in the sources.

But a reminder -- no one pasls, and no one holds only BAGB is kosher.
(See IM YD I #111.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 18/10/2010 10:07 AM, Micha Berger wrote:

> L insists on using bor al gabei bor, rather than the standard hashakah.
> I don't think it's a matter of din or even halachic preference; rather,
> like the straight-armed menoros, something the rebbe said became a
> symbol of who they are. The Rebbe Rashab designed a bor-al-gabei-bor,
> and now it's a Lub "thing". I only have it on say-so that there is no
> actual halachic/hashkafic argument for the preference.

That is very much not the case.  It is definitely a halachic preference,
and the halachic argument seems water-tight, if you'll pardon the pun.
BABG is the design that seems to satisfy all known opinions of rishonim,
in the most mehudar fashion possible.



> In a BAGB, the otzar is underneath the immersion pool. This keeps the
> cold otzar from freezing the person in the miqvah, since cold water will
> stay to the bottom. However, it also implies that there is less mixing of
> waters than in other designs, making it an inferior design according to
> some posqim (based on the Raavad's require "nosei se'ah venoteil se'ah"),
> see the Shakh YD 201:63.

On the contrary.  You have the Raavad backwards; he (alone) holds that
mixing the water too much will make the mikveh pasul!  The lack of mixing
in BABG is a deliberate feature, in order to accommodate the Raavad,
since in mikvaot we try to accommodate as many shitos as possible, even
daas yachid.

  
> IOW, I do not know of an L reason (other than comfort and pride in one's
> rebbe) to actually prefer a BAGB. I do know of halachic reasons for a
> non-L to prefer going to another one.

Do tell.  I have never heard of any such reason.

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

I may be wrong but I was under the impression that:

1.It was the Baal HaTanya himself who designed the Bor Al Gabbei Bor design 
and this is why Chabad/Lub insists on it
2.They actually believe that it is halachically preferrable since the side 
by side bor has the issue where if the water in the otzar falls below the 
line of the hashaka hole the hashaka ceases! whereas bor on bor there is no 
such fear at all
3.Rav Shach and other poskim opposed it on the halachic grounds that the 
lower bor's hashakah hole gets clogged with dirt and blocked up, thus 
rendering the upper Bor non-kosher

Kol Tuv,
R' Tal Moshe Zwecker
Director Machon Be'er Mayim Chaim
Chassidic Classics in the English Language
www.chassidusonline.com
chassidusonl...@gmail.com
Phone: 972-2-992-1218 / Cell: 972-54-842-4725
VoIP: 516-320-6022 / eFax: 1-832-213-3135
join the mailing list here: http://groups.google.com/group/beermayimchaim
Noam Elimelech, Kedushas Levi, Pirkei Avos more!
Discuss Chassidus http://groups.google.com/group/torahchassidusdiscussion
Author Page https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B003VH9D48
LinkedIn: http://il.linkedin.com/in/rabbitalmoshe 

  Me:
>> ...I suspect that it really bothered him that the 13 midot shehatorah
>> nidreshet bahem do not yield unique answers, and that may be why he
>> claims that few laws were deduced from them.
RZL:
> The Rambam says in Sefer HaMItzvos Shoresh Shayni that "rov" laws were
> deduced by them, and being that there were thousands that Osniel ben
> Kenaz reconstructed, the Rambam says, the number that were not forgotten
> must have been much more.
See the hakdamah to PhM (tr. Kafih p.11): The first class of halachot 
includes those which are deduced without ambiguity using MSNB, and the 
third class consists exclusively of those which were deduced with 
ambiguity using MSNB.  See his discussion of "misherabbu talmiddei 
Shammai v'Hillel ..." which begins on that same page.

David Riceman

On 10/18/2010 4:06 PM, David Riceman wrote:
>  Me:
>>> ...I suspect that it really bothered him that the 13 midot shehatorah
>>> nidreshet bahem do not yield unique answers, and that may be why he
>>> claims that few laws were deduced from them.
> RZL:
>> The Rambam says in Sefer HaMItzvos Shoresh Shayni that "rov" laws were
>> deduced by them, and being that there were thousands that Osniel ben
>> Kenaz reconstructed, the Rambam says, the number that were not forgotten
>> must have been much more.
> See the hakdamah to PhM (tr. Kafih p.11): The first class of halachot 
> includes those which are deduced without ambiguity using MSNB, and the 
> third class consists exclusively of those which were deduced with 
> ambiguity using MSNB.  See his discussion of "misherabbu talmiddei 
> Shammai v'Hillel ..." which begins on that same page.
>
> David Riceman
>
>
I don't understand the import of your response. I was questioning your 
statement that the Rambam "claims that few laws were deduced from them 
[the 13 middos sheh-haTorah nidreshets bahen]," by citing his statements 
that "rov" halachos resulted from these methods and that the 1,700 
halachos that Osniel ben Kenaz reconstructed were only a fraction of the 
total number of laws generated through the 13 middos.

Regarding the passages about Shammai and Hillel's disciples or about the 
classes of laws derived through the 13 middos--I don't see what bearing 
that has on the subject.

(You refer to laws being deduced with and without "ambiguity." Did 
R'KPCH translate the Arabic "mesupachos" vs. Al Harizi's "machlokess"? 
Even if he did, I think the context and any attempt at making sense out 
of the passages would render the thought as Al Harizi did--some of these 
laws were subject to machlokos and some were not.  I.e., the sages 
deriving laws through the 13 middos were sometimes unanimous in their 
conclusions and sometimes disagreed (yeish ba-hem machlokess vs. ein 
ba-hem machlokess). In the time of Hillel and Shammai's talmidim, there 
was an explosion of such [unresolved] disagreements.)

Zvi Lampel

R'YL asked:
> This morning someone told me that he had heard  that RYBS once
> spoke against installing stained glass windows in a synagogue,
> saying it was Chukas Ha Goyim. He said he had heard that RYBS
> went so far as to say that one should not go to a synagogue with
> stained glass windows to hear shofar.
>
> Can anyone verify this?

RAF responded: 

"It's a letter, printed in Community, Covenant and Conversation, of the
Meotzar haRav series, and it was about a non denominational chapel at
a prominent university (perhaps Columbia IIRC)."

The letter (which is the first entry in CC&C) deals with the question
of "human images on stained glass windows"; not simply stained glass
windows.  RYBS's recommendation was not to have any representation of human
form.  Nothing is said about shofar.  BTW, the windows were to be placed in
an interfaith chapel at Cornell.  RYBS, although not asked, was opposed to
having an interfaith chapel.  He was 1 for 2; they built the chapel but the
stained glass windows portrayed only natural scenes; there were no human
figures.

Joseph Kaplan 

On 18/10/2010 6:19 PM, Tal Moshe Zwecker wrote:
> I may be wrong but I was under the impression that:
>
> 1.It was the Baal HaTanya himself who designed the Bor Al Gabbei Bor
> design

Not so.  In his day rain-water mikvaos were unknown.  His mikveh design,
which was one of his proudest achievements, involved a perforated wooden
box built into a stream (or perhaps that could be lowered into the
stream with the woman inside -- I'm not entirely sure)


> 2.They actually believe that it is halachically preferrable since the
> side by side bor has the issue where if the water in the otzar falls
> below the line of the hashaka hole the hashaka ceases! whereas bor
> on bor there is no such fear at all

That is one reason.


> 3.Rav Shach and other poskim opposed it on the halachic grounds that
> the lower bor's hashakah hole gets clogged with dirt and blocked up,
> thus rendering the upper Bor non-kosher

This is physically impossible.


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

I am happily corrected in the precise details, and these correspond
with what I now recall (my CC & C is unfortunately inaccessible, in
storage). Point is, we both agree that he had nothing against stained
glass windows in a shul (provided the imagery is appropriate). The
shofar part of the story is obviously conflated from his stand on non
mechitza synagogues.

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Joseph Kaplan <jkap...@tenzerlunin.com> wrote:
> The letter (which is the first entry in CC&C) deals with the
> question of "human images on stained glass windows"; not simply
> stained glass windows. ?RYBS's recommendation was not to have any
> representation of human form. ?Nothing is said about shofar. ?BTW, the
> windows were to be placed in an interfaith chapel at Cornell. ?RYBS,
> although not asked, was opposed to having an interfaith chapel. ?He
> was 1 for 2; they built the chapel but the stained glass windows
> portrayed only natural scenes; there were no human figures.



-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

  RZL:
> I don't understand the import of your response. I was questioning your 
> statement that the Rambam "claims that few laws were deduced from them 
> [the 13 middos sheh-haTorah nidreshets bahen]," by citing his 
> statements that "rov" halachos resulted from these methods and that 
> the 1,700 halachos that Osniel ben Kenaz reconstructed were only a 
> fraction of the total number of laws generated through the 13 middos.
>
> Regarding the passages about Shammai and Hillel's disciples or about 
> the classes of laws derived through the 13 middos--I don't see what 
> bearing that has on the subject.
>
> (You refer to laws being deduced with and without "ambiguity." Did 
> R'KPCH translate the Arabic "mesupachos" vs. Al Harizi's "machlokess"? 
> Even if he did, I think the context and any attempt at making sense 
> out of the passages would render the thought as Al Harizi did--some of 
> these laws were subject to machlokos and some were not.  I.e., the 
> sages deriving laws through the 13 middos were sometimes unanimous in 
> their conclusions and sometimes disagreed (yeish ba-hem machlokess vs. 
> ein ba-hem machlokess). In the time of Hillel and Shammai's talmidim, 
> there was an explosion of such [unresolved] disagreements.)
>
The Rambam was making a necessary distinction between classes of laws, 
not a contingent distinction.  The first class can be resolved by a 
person saying "I have a tradition", and the third class cannot.  The 
first class consist of traditions, many of which, in addition, can be 
deduced by MSNB.

I suggest that the halachos of ObK were of this category, and the 
deduction jogged people's memory.  Cf. Yadayim 4:3 "al tahushu 
l'minyanchem" (there are several other sugyos where something like this 
happens as well).

David Riceman

From: "Prof. Levine" <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu>

> Is it really the Torah approach to "cover up"
> things that do not fit with the conceptions that
> some of how a gadol is supposed to be? I think
> that the answer is a resounding "No!"

Well, how do you explain that Terach's demise was conviniently
mentioned at the end of Noach, in order to fudge the fact that he
lived until Avraham was 130 years old? The correct location would have
been around Chayei Sarah!

Talk about "cover up".

- Danny

From: Meir Rabi <meir...@gmail.com>

> The Siddur printed by Miller (p 877) instructs the entire congregation to
> say the first part of the "long" Kaddish said by the mourners, together with
> the mourner.
> Can anyone shed any light on this?

Try the Kitzur SA at 199:9 who says to do just that until "Vi'Kore".
The Shulchan Aruch and Tur (YD 376) don't mention saying it together.

> Does this also apply to saying this identical Kaddish at a Siyum; do all the
> participants recite the declaration and the hope to see a restored Yrm?

No idea; anybody know the source for saying the long Kaddish at a
Siyum? For that matter, I've seen Temanim say the long Kaddish
withTiskabal at Mincha.

- Danny

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:59:04PM +0200, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: Well, how do you explain that Terach's demise was conviniently
: mentioned at the end of Noach, in order to fudge the fact that he
: lived until Avraham was 130 years old? The correct location would have
: been around Chayei Sarah!

Similarly, Avraham failed to stop Migdal Bavel, but that failure is
also hidden from the reader.

Of course, no one claimed that Bereishis is a biography.

I have the same solution WRT modern bios -- just be up front and call
them hagiographies, and all the problems evaporate. All, except for the
shortage of noble people's mistakes to learn from.

The issue is one of chinukh. What is more useful -- inspiration and
awe, or being able to learn from how others successfully faced their
own shortcomings? Each has validity.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
mi...@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            -Rita Mae Brown

RJoel Rich wrote:
>>>
I remember learning that a ben Ch"ul in eretz Yisrael tomorrow and planning
to return to ch"ul:
1. says vten tal Umatar while there
2.Continues to say it when back in ch"ul.
>>>


I live in Israel, and am presently visiting the States . Based on a tshuva
of RMF (IM OCh 2 (?) 102), I started saying  v'ten tal Umatar on 7
Marchesvan, as do bnei EY.
In that tshuva, RMF says that saying since rain is beneficial in the early
fall in chu"l, starting saying vten tal Umatar  from Marchesvan on even in
chu"l makes a lot of sense, based on tshuvot haRosh, klal 2 siman 10. He
cites the BY who says that the Rosh is correct "rak shemikol makom lo nahagu
kamoto".  Thus, anyone who is a special case (not part of the minhag) should
say v'ten tal Umatar even before the chu"l time.  RMF says this explicitly
about my case (ben EY), and IMO we can apply this to RJR's second case (ben
chu"l shehitchil b'EY v'chazar l'chu"l) as well.

The Rama 117;2 states that one who says v'ten tal Umatar in a place which
needs rain need not repeat SE( we hold by the Rosh at least b'dieved).

However, R' Aharon Roz showed me Shu"t Knei Bosem of R. Meir Bransdorfer,
OCh 10;3 who says explicitly that even a ben chu"l who started to say v'ten
tal Umatar in EY *stops* saying it when he returns to chu"l, until Dec 4/5.
He cites Shut BTzel Hachochma vol. I 62, who supports this position.

Another possibility is suggested by R. Vozner is Shu"t Shevet Halevi -
saying v'ten tal Umatar in shomea t'filla in chu"l. This would apply to both
my case and RJR's second case.
He holds (unlike RMF) that rain is unneed in chu"l in the early fall, but
*anyone* can ask for rain in shomea t'filla starting 7 Marchesvan, the
requested rain being on behalf of bnei EY.

Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20101019/63c22f87/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 186
***************************************

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..."