Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 225

Tue, 28 Dec 2010

• 1. Re: Koseiv on computers (Zev Sero)
• 2. Koseiv on computers, was [Areivim] People of the, Ebook (David Riceman)
• 3. Re: Are "Gedolim Stories" Good for Chinuch? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 4. Re: Koseiv on computers, was [Areivim] People of the, Ebook (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Changing the tune in Lecha Dodi - Revisted (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 6. Re: Are "Gedolim Stories" Good for Chinuch? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Is a Bell Definitely Mukze? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Koseiv on computers, was [Areivim] People of the, Ebook (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: [Areivim] More on Reviving a Ritual of Tending to the dead (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Re: [Areivim] More on Reviving a Ritual of Tending to the dead (Joseph Kaplan)
• 11. Re: Changing the tune in Lecha Dodi - Revisted (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 12. halachos of tahara (T6...@aol.com)
• 13. Musaf Amida on Shabbos (Rich Wolberg)
• 14. Re: People of the E-Book? Observant Jews Struggle With Sabbath in a Digita (from Areivim) (Hankman)
• 15. Re: [Areivim] More on Reviving a Ritual of Tending to the dead (Chana Luntz)

On 27/12/2010 1:01 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> 2- My real question is about e-paper, the kind of LCD used in the Kindle,
> Nook, and other (B&W) readers, as opposed to the back-lit screen of a
> cell phone, ipad, or laptop. The fact that it's passive, just something
> that changes color rather than emits light, is a tzad leheter on the
> electricity side. But e-paper only uses electricity when you change
> pages. Meaning, if you display an image and leave the e-reader alone,
> the text will stay on screen indefinitely.
>
> It is thus un-like the question of sheimos on a regular computer display.

Yes, it's more like writing on an etch-a-sketch, or one of those things
where you write on a film, and then pull the film and the writing
disappears.  That is to say, it's *intended* to be temporary, but there's
nothing in its actual nature to make it so.

WRT to knots, we take into account the tier's intention; if he intends
to undo the knot within 24 hours we don't call it "shel kayama" even if
it could last for a long time.  But I see no clear reason why that should
apply to writing.

In any event, temporary writing is assur mid'rabanan.

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

RYS:

<<Let's consider an LCD screen. (I'm not familiar with e-ink tech.) 
True, that the image disappears once the signal changes, but for the 
moment, my command is causing the liquid crystal to take the shape of a 
word. So the question becomes, is there a chiluk in eino-niskayem 
between writing in dust, and making a computer display an image. I don't 
see one; I will now consult the Avodah archives>>

I have a friend who's a sofer, who asked Rabbi Gustman years ago whether 
he could display uncensored Humash on a CRT or whether there was a 
problem of m'hikas haShem when he moved to the next page.  Rabbi Gustman 
replied that because the display was pixellated there wasn't a problem.  
I have no idea if that would apply to screens with extremely high 
numbers of pixels, and it doesn't seem related to hilchos shabbos, but 
it is another issue to think about.

David Riceman

I wrote:

> When the post office clerk offered to ship the Chofetz Chayim's
> seforim for free, did he have the authority to do so? I doubt
> it. But when the CC purchased an equivalent value of stamps and
> tore them up, this is portrayed as an amazing feat of tzidkus.
> Why? Isn't this a basic act which should be expected of *all*
> of us?

I neglected to give a source for the above. Here's one version:

"When a non-Jewish railroad employee put parcels of his books on board a
train for free delivery, the Chofetz Chaim tore up an amount of postage
stamps sufficient to defray the loss of revenue to the government."

-- By Rabbi Nosson Scherman in the Jewish Observer and the
ArtScroll/Mesorah Publications Judaiscope Series, and online at http://tinyurl.com/2avvlow and at http://tinyurl.com/2efo5rx

That version of the story is slightly different than the version I heard,
in that it was not a post office clerk, but a railroad employee. It seems
to me that if the railroad and post office were both run by the government,
then the differences are minor, even if they weren't monopolies.

I found a different version of the story at http://tinyurl.com/2gyyp73 whose last paragraph says:

"He also says that the famous story of the Chofetz Chaim who ripped up a
stamp when he found someone who would personally deliver his letter, was
not grounded in Halacha.  You don't have an obligation to pay the
government money when your friend delivers your letter.  The Chofetz Chaim
ripped the stamp because in his great kedusha he wanted to make a Kiddush
Hashem."

According to that version, if a letter was delivered by someone who was
doing a personal favor for the Chofetz Chaim, then I'd agree that there was
no obligation to reimburse the government. In fact, with all due respect to
the author of that version, it sounds silly to me. People send letters and
packages via their friends all the time. Did the Chofetz Chaim rip up
stamps when he sent his Mishloach Manos, even to make a Kiddush Hashem? I
doubt it; surely the story of the stamps was about a case where the Chofetz
Chaim got special treatment and felt that it should not have been done for
free.

Alternatively, perhaps the "someone" in that story was indeed a post office
clerk, but he delivered it *personally*, instead of sending it for free
through the post office. If that's what happened, then I can see how there
was no obligation to pay anything, yet because he walked into the post
office with the intention of purchasing a service from the government, he
felt it to be a Kiddush HaShem to insure that the government would not lose
out by the employee's favor.

This story was also mentioned on Avodah by listmember R' Daniel Eidensohn
at http://www.aish
das.org/avodah/vol06/v06n044.shtml#06

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210

On 27/12/2010 3:53 PM, David Riceman wrote:
  
> I have a friend who's a sofer, who asked Rabbi Gustman years ago
> whether he could display uncensored Humash on a CRT or whether there
> was a problem of m'hikas haShem when he moved to the next page. Rabbi
> Gustman replied that because the display was pixellated there wasn't
> a problem.

If you get right down to it, isn't all writing made up of pixels, which
can be seen under sufficient magnification?  And certainly all printing?
Also, if we're to consider gaps between the pixels which are too small
for the naked eye to see, why wouldn't we also consider cracks that are
too small to see?

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

R' Ben Waxman wrote:

> Well I was postulating that a change to a custom which in of
> itself is only 500 years old can not, by definition, have a
> source.
> Of course it depends how someone defines what is a source. If
> some rebbi from 19th century makes some hiddush, is that a
> source?

I'm confused. If this thread is about how to a define a "minhag", then
please continue discussing it. But if we are discussing what constitutes a
"source" for a something said recently, then any reliable source would be a
"source", right?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Go Back to School
Grant Funding May Be Available to Those Who Qualify
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4d18ff9e286e29ba51est01vuc

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 08:57:28PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: I found a different version of the story at http://tinyurl.com/2gyyp73
: whose last paragraph says:

: "He also says that the famous story of the Chofetz Chaim who ripped up
: a stamp when he found someone who would personally deliver his letter,
: was not grounded in Halacha. You don't have an obligation to pay the
: government money when your friend delivers your letter. The Chofetz
: Chaim ripped the stamp because in his great kedusha he wanted to make
: a Kiddush Hashem."

This is the version R' Dov Katz has in Tenu'as haMussar.

: According to that version, if a letter was delivered by someone who
: was doing a personal favor for the Chofetz Chaim, then I'd agree that
: there was no obligation to reimburse the government. In fact, with all
: due respect to the author of that version, it sounds silly to me. People
: send letters and packages via their friends all the time. Did the Chofetz
: Chaim rip up stamps when he sent his Mishloach Manos, even to make a
: Kiddush Hashem? ...

My understanding is that he originally intended to post the letter, and
therefore had mentally given the money to the gov't. He didn't want to
back out of a deal, even if just devarim shebaleiv.

(There is a similar notion in the gemara about accepting an offer mentally
during shemoneh esrei, and therefore not accepting a higher offer made
by someone who thought the silence was a rejection. I forgot the who and
where though; and of course that case differs in not involving nakhriim.)

But I hope that's enough to take the absurd edge off this version
of story.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 09:53:58PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: In OC338, BY prohibits all *musically* *intended* sounds made through
: the agency of any object.
: Ramo goes further, and prohibits all sound productions through the
: agency of an object, including non-musical sounds. Taz extends this to
: the bells on a mantle of a Torah scroll.

: However, Arukh haShul'han finds all that excessive, and seems to follow BY.

: Unsurprisingly, Mishnah Verurah goes with Ramo's stringency. Shemirat
: Shabbat keHilkhato rules like Ramo, with the exception...

: I wonder, did any Ashkenazi poskim cite Arukh haShul'han approvingly
: in this matter?

Someone must, or are there no bells on the kesarim on the sifrei Torah
in your shul? Common practice (across most Eastern European and Sepharadi
qehillos, if not across the board) is not like the Taz.

(Anyway, some of us hold the AhS to be poseiq acharon and not require the
support you seek anyway.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 04:42:28PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 27/12/2010 3:53 PM, David Riceman wrote:
>> I have a friend who's a sofer, who asked Rabbi Gustman years ago...

> If you get right down to it, isn't all writing made up of pixels, which
> can be seen under sufficient magnification?  And certainly all printing?
> Also, if we're to consider gaps between the pixels which are too small
> for the naked eye to see, why wouldn't we also consider cracks that are
> too small to see?

But "years ago", and in fact on the monitor I'm currently using, the
pixels can be seen. (When I put my eyes 6' from the screen and wear
my reading glasses; I assume younger members of our chevrah can do it
with their naked eyes.) Your typical monitor, even today's LCDs max at
around 85 pixels per inch (ppi), and those CRTs that R' Gustman spoke of
"years ago" were around 67 ppi.

Another difference with e-paper, other than the permanence, is that this
isn't true. I don't think the typical person can see the pixels at 150
ppi. Similarly, the pixels on an iPhone or iPod (362 ppi), and probably
not even an iPad (132 ppi).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

RZS asks:

> It's the first night of Pesach, and you have an obligation to drink
> four cups of wine.  The only wine available to you is kosher and
> mevushal, but it has unfortunately been used for a Protestant mass.  After
the
> mass the minister poured the leftover wine back into the bottle, and is
now
> offering it to you to use for your seder.  Do you use it or not?
> It's certainly distasteful, but OTOH it's not tikroves AZ (which is why
> I specified Protestant), and arba kosos is a chiyuv.  Do you have the
> right to reject it and neglect the mitzvah?

I think the answer here would probably be the same one as the Shulchan Aruch
Yoreh Deah siman 139 si'if 13 which says that candles and wax of idol
worshippers are forbidden for a ner mitzvah whether of shabbas or Chanukah
or for a shul and also the garments of the priests one should not make from
them a talis and not anything of a mitzvah mishum dimiusi, even though it is
made clear above and elsewhere that these things are permitted for ordinary
use.

Ie there seems to be an inyan that if something is distasteful to this
extreme then it cannot be used for a dvar mitzvah.  Of course that does
raise the question, is the Shulchan Aruch talking about the ordinary case,
or about a case where it is this or nothing?  And in a quick search around I
couldn't find anything directly on point.  But it seems to me that the
language of mishum d'mius is suggesting of baal tishkatzu so there may be an
element of a d'orisa in it, and the four cups at least (and, come to think
of it, all the other mitzvos mentioned except perhaps tzitzis which is not
obligatory) are derabbanan, and since we are talking about a shev v'al
ta'aseh, my instincts are that the answer is to reject the bottle of wine
and neglect the mitzvah are arba kosos.

I do think the question that started this off though is a little different.
Because here we are discussing one's own obligation to do a mitzvah,
whereas, it seem to me, the original question under discussion involving
taharos is a question of kovod hameis.

And it seems to me that the place to look for sources is in Orech Chaim
Siman 526 si'if 1 where the Shulchan Aruch discusses the case where it was
common in our sources to involve a non Jew in the burial, that is, when we
are dealing with a meis on Yom Tov.  In that case, the Shulchan Aruch rules
that the non Jew should do for the meis all the things that involve an issur
d'orisa, such as making the aron and the tachrichin etc but to dress it and
to pour water for its tahara is permitted to be done by a Jew (mutar al
yadei Yisroel).  And the Magen Avraham comments there in si'if katan 3: that
it is the minhag to be metaher him completely without the assistance of an
akum and not like the Radvaz.  Now it appears from the other meforshim (I
tried looking in the reference in the Sharei Teshuva and the Magen Avraham,
but couldn't find the relevant part) that the Radvaz held that the akum
should do most of the tahara, and a Jew should do the final pouring of the
water in order to finish it off.  And the issue seems to be this, moving the
limb of a dead body (and other actions involved in the tahara) are issurei
rabbanan on Yom Tov, and the question is, should a Jew violate issurei
rabbanan to do the tahara or not? The Radvaz says no, the other meforshim
say yes, it is a mitzvah and kovod hameis.  And the Levush explains not only
is it mutar afilu b'yom tov rishon al yadei Yisroel, but mutav sheasu al
yadei Yisroel masheyasinu al yadei goyim hatameim v'ain bo kavod l'meis.

So, it seems to me we have at least some sources to answer the questions
that are being raised. Firstly, it is minhag Yisroel to always have the
tahara done by a Jew, even if it involves violating issurei d'rabbanan to do
so (as in the case of Yom Tov).  And while there is rishonic authority to
the contrary, it would appear that it is not only mutar to violate issurei
d'rabbanan in this case, but it is better to do so, because of kavod hameis.
But, it would also seem from the language of the Magen Avraham and the
Levush, that it is not assur for an akum to do the taharah, given that the
language used is mutav and minhag.  And maybe I am reading too much into it,
but it does seem like, if there was no option but to have an akum do it,
then that would be a better option than not to have it done at all (the
Levush does not say, and if a Jew can't do it, it cannot be done at all).
The implication being that while it may be a bizayon to the meis to have it
done al yadei akum, it would seem to be a greater bizayon if it is not done
at all.  So on the one hand my instincts are with RZS here in that, vis a
vis an individual meis, it is better that it have a lesser bizayon (done by
dubious chevrei kadisha that are possibly not Jewish and possibly minim)
than a greater bizayon (not to have a tahara at all).  But on the other
hand, once we are clearly dealing with minhag yisroel, issues of not
breaching minhag in order to encourage minus do raise their heads, so that,
for the greater good of the klal, it might be that it is better not
encouraged (which really gets us into the common question about how to
relate to Conservative, Reform etc where it is often the case where the
individual may benefit but the judgment is that the klal does not).

> Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you

Regards

Chana

Rn' Chana Luntz, at the conclusion of her as always scholarly exposition on certain issues relating to who may perform a tahara, says:

  So on the one hand my instincts are with RZS here in that, vis a
> vis an individual meis, it is better that it have a lesser bizayon (done by
> dubious chevrei kadisha that are possibly not Jewish and possibly minim)
> than a greater bizayon (not to have a tahara at all).  But on the other
> hand, once we are clearly dealing with minhag yisroel, issues of not
> breaching minhag in order to encourage minus do raise their heads, so that,
> for the greater good of the klal, it might be that it is better not
> encouraged (which really gets us into the common question about how to
> relate to Conservative, Reform etc where it is often the case where the
> individual may benefit but the judgment is that the klal does not).

ISTM that Rn' Chana, in her "on the other hand," makes a jump from non-Jew
to C and R; that is, the sources she quotes and on which she bases her
analysis speak about an akum participating in burial rituals, but then, in
her conclusion, she speaks, for the first time, about minim (who, I must
assume from the context, she equates with C and R Jews). Am I missing
something?; do the sources speak about minim? Perhaps she could clarify
this, but as I see it based on what she wrote, while she has educated us
(as she always does) on the issue debated between RMSS and RZS of the
proverbial "Gregorian monks" participating in a tahara, she has not,
notwithstanding her conclusory remarks, provided us with sources or
educated us on the original question concerning C and R Jews participating
in a tahara.

Joseph Kaplan

R' Ben Waxman:
Someone mentioned to me that according to Rav Shlomo Zalman, every minhag 
has a source. The upshot of that is if something doesn't have a source, it 
is not a minhag. How changing the tune in Lecha Dodi, which itself is only 
500 years old, could have a source, would be hard to understand.
----------


siddurim. Does anyone have one? Can you check and see if it says a source
for it?

KT,
MYG

 
I wrote to Rabbi Kalman Baumann, the head of the Chevra Kadisha in Miami,  
and summarized the recent thread, asking some of the questions that have 
come  up.  His response follows.
 
--Toby  Katz
==========




 
The issues you raise do not lend themselves to quick answers  (surprise!). 
 
Historically, the Minhag in every Jewish community from the time of Chazal  
was to appoint a Chevra Kadisha that was always comprised of the most 
honorable  of people in the community.(Nidah 24b - Aba Shaul Omair Kovair Meisim  
Hayisi )  The minimum standard is given as Yehudim Kasheirim  Metzuyanim  
V'Chashuvim (Sefer Kol Bo al Aveilus (p. 87) .  Nowadays the accepted minimum 
is Anshei Das Ma'aminim B'HaShem U'B'Toraso,  V'Shomrim Mitzvas Shabbos, 
Kashrus, V'Taharas HaMishpacha. (Zichron Meir al  Aveilus p. 290 note 6)
 
That of course, is the ideal. If such people aren't available, the next  
best are less observant and less honorable Jews.  Non-Jews should not even  
touch the body during or after the Tahara, nor should they carry the Aron.  On 
the other hand, if waiting for Jews to arrive to do the Tahara will  cause 
a long delay in the burial, such as on Yom Tov Rishon when a Jew can't do  
most of the preparations, the Halacha for some communities is to have 
non-Jews  do the burial on Yom Tov Rishon, rather than having Jews do it on Yom Tov 
Sheini  (Shulchan Orach Orach Chayim 526:2).  
 
It seems therefore, that when a gentile does a Tahara when Halacha  
dictates, it does satisfy the requirement of a Tahara. 
 
I don't know if a non-believer's Tefillos are good or not - can such a  
person be a Shaliach Tzibbur? What constitutes non-belief? Apikorus? Mumar? 
(not  my area of expertise)


Concerning the practical ramifications of Conservative and Reform Chevras,  
it's anyone's guess. Interestingly, my experience has been that 
Conservative  Jews have been receiving Taharos for decades and many smaller communities 
have  had conservative dominated Chevras for the same time.  As to its  
desirability, they are clearly not the candidates for the Chevros Kadisha we  
strive for, and clearly will lower the standards for any Tahara that  
otherwise would have been performed by a proper Chevra. That goes for  suitability 
of Metaharim and Metaharos, as well as following Minhag Yisrael in  
important details such as using buckets for Tisha Kabin as opposed to using  water 
from a hose, which is unacceptable.  Therefore, if funeral homes will  start 
calling reform and conservative chevras for Niftarim that they currently  
call us for, that would be terrible, as you say. However, if it's part of a  
movement to make Taharos universally practiced among Jews as Bris Milah is, 
it  certainly has a positive aspect to it.


Hope I've brought some clarity to the table.


Kol Tuv,
Kalman Baumann










--------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101228/b3513576/attachment-0001.htm>

KB wrote: The shaliach tzibbur goes silently through
shomeia tefillah

I have never seen "shma koleinu" (shomeia tefillah) in Shabbos Musaf.  Is there a tradition that has it?

>
> [SLB writes] Actually, only if you don't consider the writing on the 
> readers to be like writing on water ? here one moment, gone the next.
>
RYS responded:
> The screen does not keep what you wrote on it in any way, shape or form. 
> That is how all screens function ? you can write the whole Bible on a 
> screen by "scrolling" down one screen at a time, but in fact it is inside 
> the memory, and not on the screen.


CM comments:

I think the analogy to writing on water by R'SLB is a poor analogy because 
of a critical difference. The image on water will degrade and self-destruct 
on its own without any active mechika by the person, so it makes sense that 
it would not be considered a viable image to which mechika applies. However 
the image on your computer monitor will remain in place until a person 
actively is involved in its mechika (I do not think the refresh cycle of the 
computer screen makes it any less permanent as the image persists in the 
phosphors (crt) or lcd and is seen as a persistent, continuous image by the 
eye).

OTOH, the response by RYS is equally problematic to me. I do not think that 
the permanence of the (sequential) bits in RAM will turn this into an image 
to which mechika can apply. These bits do not for form an image, nor is the 
physical location of these bits on the RAM relevant to forming the image as 
would be the case for pixels on a screen or bits of ink on a page, nor are 
they themselves visible. They are merely part of the sequential instructions 
as to which pixels on the screen are turned on. The bits in RAM are merely 
instrumental in forming the image on the screen, but not an image 
themselves.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101228/ec386f6b/attachment-0001.htm>

RJK writes:
> ISTM that Rn' Chana, in her "on the other hand," makes a jump from non-
> Jew to C and R; that is, the sources she quotes and on which she bases
> her analysis speak about an akum participating in burial rituals, but
> then, in her conclusion, she speaks, for the first time, about minim
> (who, I must assume from the context, she equates with C and R Jews).
> Am I missing something?;

As I understood it, the thread a heart involves a discussion about whether
it might be a "good thing" to encourage R and C to set up chevrei kadisha
and do taharos.  The argument for was that there were people who would not
get (or whose relatives would not let them get) an Orthodox tahara, but
might be prepared to allow a non Orthodox tahara.  The argument against was
twofold: a) a number of the people potentially participating in the non
Orthodox chevrei kaddisha might well be (in fact are likely to be)
halachically not Jewish (hence the tahara would actually be being performed
by an akum) and b) even in relation to those who might be halachically
Jewish, there was scepticism as to whether they would be considered to be
saying the prayers properly, believing in HKBH etc etc (ie that they were
really minim).  And the argument then came back that even if a) and b) were
true, ie the chevrei kaddisha might be made up of non Jews and non
believers, does it really matter, or is what really matters that the meis
has an appropriate Jewish burial, regardless of who does it.

> do the sources speak about minim?

No, the sources discussing doing a tahara on yom tov do not speak
specifically about minim (but it does speak specifically about a tahara done
by an akum, which was at least half of the equation, as there would seem to
be a reasonable risk that at least some of the participants in a C or R
chevra kadisha would have had a conversion that was not recognised by the
Orthodox, or, in the case of R, were of patralineal descent).

But there are also the basic sources regarding minus.  The basic principle
is that a mumar l'chachis or a mumar lchalel shabbas befarhesia dino k'oved
kachovim (see eg Yoreh Deah siman 2 si'if 5) (this is usually taken to go
l'chumra and not l'kula, ie a mumar still has to give a get, although there
are indeed rishonim who held that even that is not necessary and that the
dino k'oved hachovim stretches even that far). But it seems to me
inescapable that when eg the Levush is discussing kovod hameis and saying
that it would be a bizayon for the meis if the tahara was done by an akum,
he would not have included a mumar l'chachis and a mumar lchalel shabbas
befarhesia in that equation had he been asked the question.  And it is also
unquestionable that when the Magen Araham is saying it is the minhag that
the tahara is done by a Yisroel and not an akum, he meant a halachically
observant Yisroel (and, if one is Orthodox, one understands that to be an
Orthodox halachically observant Yisroel, I know that is not the C view, but
we are assuming an Orthodox view here).

Today we have softened this line regarding various people having the din of
an akum generally on the grounds that we treat them as a tinuk shenishba, ie
not morally culpable for what they do due to their upbringing.  Of course
the level of culpability attributed varies.  In the case of C and R, Rav
Moshe, for example, famously exempted the laity from moral culpability but
refused to do so for the clergy, taking the view that they were minim vadai,
and therefore eg their brochos were null and void(see eg Iggeros Moshe Orech
Chaim chelek beis siman 50).

So, the fundamental question that arises is - is it appropriate to stretch
the minhag of doing tahara by way of a halachically observant Yisroel to
include a tinuk shenishba?  And that would seem to be linked to the question
of bizayon hameis.  Because it seems that there is no intrinsic problem in
an akum doing the tahara, aside from minhag and aside from bizayon to the
meis.  So the question then becomes, is it any less a bizayon to the meis to
have the tahara done by a tinuk shenishba than an akum?  Why would that be?
In discussing the question of bizayon, the position of the rishonim appears
to be that it would be a bizayon to the meis if Jews were mechallel yom tov
d'orisa in order to tend to them, and indeed that appears to be the Radvaz's
argument why Jews should not even violate issurei d'rabbanan (and the
counter argument appears rooted in the more general waiving of rabbinic
obligations in certain kavod type situations).  The implication here, it
seems to me, is that while we might say that nebech, a tinuk shenishba
doesn't know what they are doing and are not morally culpable, the bizayon
to the meis, who is now in the olam shel emes, to have the tahara done by
them would seem to be the same or if anything, perhaps greater.  The akum is
not required to do mitzvos (save for the sheva mitzvos benei noach, which
they may well be doing), and the tinuk shenishba is failing (albeit due to
circumstances) to do what they are meant to do. Having which as one's
attendant gives greater kavod to the meis?

 Perhaps she
> could clarify this, but as I see it based on what she wrote, while she
> has educated us (as she always does) on the issue debated between RMSS
> and RZS of the proverbial "Gregorian monks" participating in a tahara,
> she has not, notwithstanding her conclusory remarks, provided us with
> sources or educated us on the original question concerning C and R Jews
> participating in a tahara.

I have tried, see above.  But I also raised a further issue in the following
passage:

> >But on the other hand, once we are clearly dealing with minhag 
> >yisroel, issues of not breaching minhag in order to encourage minus do 
> >raise their heads, so that, for the greater good of the klal, it might 
> >be that it is better not encouraged (which really gets us into the 
> >common question about how to relate to Conservative, Reform etc where 
> >it is often the case where the individual may benefit but the judgment is
that the klal does not).

You see, even for those who disagree with Rav Moshe and hold that even a
member of the C and R rabbinate can be considered a tinuk shenishba, there
is still a different equation when you are potentially talking about
strengthening problematic movements as a whole.  And sometimes that is
regarded as overriding the needs of the individual (eg there are various
rumours regarding psak that even if a C shul is the only one to go to, one
should not go there to hear shofar) not to mention lines in the sand
famously drawn regarding giving divrei torah in the vernacular.  There is a
long history of not doing things that one otherwise might do because of
potential strengthening of the minim (not saying the aseres hadibros
b'tzibbur for example) or the community of minim.  Whether one should or
should not apply these sources to C and R is a question as long standing as
the existence of these movements, and we are not going to solve it here, so
all I was trying to do was to point out that it was at one with all of these
other debates.

> Joseph Kaplan=

Regards

Chana



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 225
***************************************

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..."