Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 226

Wed, 29 Dec 2010

• 1. Re: Is a Bell Definitely Mukze? (Arie Folger)
• 2. Re: Is a Bell Definitely Mukze? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: People of the E-Book? Observant Jews Struggle With Sabbath in a Digita (from Areivim) (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: halachos of tahara (Micha Berger)
• 5. Electricity and the next Sanhedrin (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. Re: Musaf Amida on Shabbos (Ken Bloom)
• 7. Re: Electricity and the next Sanhedrin (Micha Berger)
• 8. koseiv on comptuers (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Knowing Ikarim (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: bavel leadership (Micha Berger)
• 11. All the paths of Jewish history have led up to this moment. (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: Changing the tune in Lecha Dodi - Revisted (Ben Waxman)
• 13. Re: [Areivim] People of the E-Book? Observant Jews Struggle With Sabbath in a Digita (Hankman)
• 14. Re: More on Reviving a Ritual of Tending to the dead (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 15. Re: More on Reviving a Ritual of Tending to the dead (Chana Luntz)

RMB wrote:
>: 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.)

Note that I did not suggest anyone rules like TaZ. It was AhS vs.
Ramo. The posseq a'haron (or rather, peissek acharein in this case
;-)) is nice, but I am wondering about citations now. To put it
differently, would you now unquestionably use a bell on Shabbos, as
long as you do not intend to form a melody or rythm?
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Moses und Ach?r
* Dodging the Draft in Dodgy Ways
* When Does Death Begin, According to Halacha?
* Nicht Rassismus, sondern ein mildes Urteil
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 06:52:25PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: Note that I did not suggest anyone rules like TaZ. It was AhS vs.
: Ramo. The posseq a'haron (or rather, peissek acharein in this case
: ;-)) is nice, but I am wondering about citations now. To put it
: differently, would you now unquestionably use a bell on Shabbos, as
: long as you do not intend to form a melody or rythm?

I would have no qualms about doing so, but I would think that in practice,
it would come across as lehachisnik.

Rav Dovid told me just minutes before my going to the chuppah that
my new home must have an AhS as "that's how we hold". (I remember
that in English, and while that's possible, it's more likely a trick
memory translating from a Hebrew or Yiddish original.) It made a strong
impression, as was probably intended.

What would the AhS have said about using a gramaphone (or a crank powered
record player) to listen to a shiur or speech? It would also create a
distinction between a musical instrument and a Kindle capable of playing
MP3s, but needn't be musical MP3s -- the function is there for Audiobooks.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:05:22AM -0500, Hankman wrote:
:                                     (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).

I would agree that a letter that is repeatedly refreshed faster than
the eye can see is persisting.

(BTW, CRTs have a flicker between refreshes. The dots of the phosphors
are fading by the time they're redrawn. LCDs do not flicker, so the
letters really persist.)

However, the image on a Kindle doesn't need refreshing altogether. It
will stay on screen until something else is drawn on the screen. If you
shut off screen saver, it might even last longer than pencil on paper.
A CRT or normal LCD needs power to stay on.

Would hitting "next page" on a Kindle be assur derabbanan, and only
assur deOraisa if you shut off the screen saver?

About the whole issur derabbanan thing... One isn't actually drawing
osios. Shades of the discussion of writing the Torah by stencil. Add
that to the basic issue being temporary writing and thus derabbanan,
and would that reduce the problem of kesivah to being shevus dishvus?

(Keeping in mind that all of the above is hypothetical until some future
Sanhedrin points out that many electronic devices, including an ebook
reader that does not generate light and isn't plugged in to the wall,
do not fit the earlier discussions of the topic.)

Running off on a tangent:
: 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...

Assuming the bits were visibly large, I started wondering about defining
tzuras ha'os.

Is a sheim written in Kesav Ivri qadosh? Two letters in Ivri is kesivah
in terms of melakhah, because two letters in Latin are. If someone draws
two random shapes and then makes up an alphabet in which those two shapes
are letters, was he oveir? (And if so when -- when he drew them, or when
he elevated them to osios?)

What about two letters encoded in "zebra stripes" (bar coding) or some
other visual record of bits? Does it make a difference if the person
actually knows the digital encoding of the letters, or if they just look
like random stripes?

Etc...

Bottom line issue: I'm not clear on the envelope of the concept of "os"
in general, and in particular how it would relate to bit sequences.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
mi...@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 07:51:41AM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: 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)

RMF allows counting the rank and file C or R Jew towards a minyan, on
the grounds that they are tinoqos shenishbe'u. The Satmar Rav would not
count them, but I think that for most of us participating in an email
discussion, the Igeros Moshe carries the day.


If we look at Hil' Teshuvah 3:6-8, we find the Rambam includes 12 of the
13 iqarim in his definitions of apiqoreis, min and kofer. (I have asked
before what happened to bi'as hamashiach, why it's less of a halachic
issue than [eg] belief in techias hameisim. I don't recall anyone posting
an answer.)

A min denies the basic notions about G-d: there is a Creator, He is One,
He has no body, etc...

An apiqoreis denies matters related to revalation: nevu'ah, nevu'as
Moshe Rabbeinu, the Torah, and the like.

A kofeir is someone who denies Divine Justice, including ol mitzvos,
sechar ve'onesh, techiyas hameisim.

(Torah ends up split, then. The notion of getting the Torah is an issue of
apiqursus, denying the notion that the Torah contains binding behavioral
implications would be a kind of kefirah.)

I noted the similarity of this split with the iqarim in Sefer haIqarim
in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/01/ikkarei-emunah.shtml
I also discuss what is a difference in word usage -- I believe the
Rambam uses the word "iqar" to refer to the same concept that the Iqarim
would call either an iqar or a shoresh depending on whether it stands
on first principles (an iqar) or stand on iqarim (a shoresh). When
you look at things that way, the differences between their lists is
slight. (Particularly in the Hil' Teshuvah version, since the Iqarim
makes bi'as hamashiach an anaf, not a shoresh -- a conclusion from a
necessary belief, not one that is necessary itself.)

While on the subject, R' Dr MS might enjoy the Tif'eres Yisra'el's
(TY) list of iqarim (in the Rambam's sense) in his commentary on Avos
3:15. The mishnah is another list of things that deprive someone of his
place in olam haba. The TY shows how each act is the denial of a step
in the logcal chain that begins with "there is a G-d" to "I have to
obey halakhah". Thus, his notion of iqarim revolve around which beliefs
justify observance.

All of which probably doesn't apply to the vast majority of today's C
or R Jews, as we are generally meiqil to follow the Radvaz that to be
a min/kofeir/apiqoreis one has to believe in meenus/kefirah/apiqursus
through an act of rebellion, not because of an honest logical error or
being a tinoq shenishba (TSN). Few C or R Jews today rebelled against a
solid chinukh; and the CI might be questioning (we debated this in the
past) whether a "solid chinukh" as required to be a one of these kinds
of heretic is even possible today.

Still, I think that the tefillah of a TSN who believes in meenus couldn't
be be valid, as the person can't be praying to the proper notion of
HQBH. He lacks the ability to daven.

But does the typical C or R Jew deny those iqarim? Even someone who denies
nissim would be an apoqoreis, not a min. It would seem that belief in
Deism, or a G-d who only intervenes by inspiring people, is not denial
of the basic Essence of what we believe the One to Whom we pray is. Both
the Iqarim and the Rambam classify it under a different category.
The typical C&R believes meenus and kefirah. But apiqursus? I don't think
so.

And I think that's pretty much where Rav Moshe is coming from, although
he doesn't write with my more philosophy-oriented angle.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

In the thread "Koseiv on computers", R' Micha Berger wrote:

> However, the general ban on electricity /is/ widely accepted.
> My forecast is that the next Sanhedrin will allow many types
> of electrical devices, but until they do we lack the authority
> to change things. And really the only people qualified to make
> a reliable forecast would be candidates for membership in that
> Sanhedrin...

Among the many things that I see more and more clearly as I mature, is that
Chazal did not impose their gezeros willy-nilly. Of course, none of us
would accuse them of doing so, but we often fail to notice the patterns
that they themselves followed when establishing those gezeros.

One example that the poskim bring to our attention is that their gezeros
were never intended to cover extremely unlikely cases. A case had to rise
to a certain level of frequency for them to forbid it. Exactly how
frequent/rare that was, is a discussion for another time; suffice it to say
that we've seen cases where a posek said, "This case is so very unusual
that Chazal never had it in mind, and therefore, they did not forbid it." I
hope I don't need to offer examples.

Another of their criteria, when making a gezera, is that it should be
reasonably simple for the average person to apply and follow. My favorite
example concerns expansion of the issur of basar b'chalav, from the
d'Oraisa animals (i.e., only behemos tehoros and no others) to include
other animals.

Logically, it seems to me that they should have expanded the issur from
behemos tehoros to *all* milk-producing animals, including chayos. After
all, I can easily see how someone who is in the habit of mixing deer meat
with milk might one day accidentally come to mix beef with milk. But
chickens don't make milk! Who would confuse chickens and cows? Did they
really have to go that far? And if they *are* going to go that far, why did
they exempt fish meat?

The answer is simple. The distinction between animals which make milk and
animals which don't, is well-known to a zoologist, and probably to a
farmer, but not so much to city folk. So they extended the rule to include
all animals of a category which should be well-known to any G-d-fearing
Jew: the animals which require shechita.

Chazal didn't forbid chicken and milk to make things difficult (despite
what some people might think). Rather, they forbade it to make things
SIMPLE. Note that "simple" is not the same thing as "easy". Chazal (I
suggest) were not very concerned with whether a gezera would require much
effort or little effort, but they were *very* concerned that the gezera
should be uncomplicated.

Just now, the phrase "lo plug" comes to mind, which summarizes this concept
quite well. Exceptions might be made in theory, but in practice it makes
the rule too unwieldy.

Whew! This was a long post! My apologies to all. The only point I'm trying
to make is my guess that the next Sanhedrin will probably NOT allow any
electrical devices beyond those which the poskim currently allow. It's just
too difficult for the average person to understand the differences between
the mutar and the assur.

Exhibit A is the collection of devices which have been developed for
Shabbos use by physicians and patients. People are willing to accept that
the device has to be designed according to very specific rules, and they
don't have any qualms with a Shomer Shabbos doctor who uses one of those
pens, or a Shomer Shabbos patient who uses one of those wheelchairs -
provided that they aren't used by to the general public.

Because when they ARE offered to the general public, we find Exhibit B:
"Sabbath Mode" stoves and ovens. Their acceptance is still far from
universal. We'll see what the future holds for them.

My guess is that "nothing will change in Yemos Hamashiach". Whatever
electrical devices get used on Shabbos will follow the
currently-established pattern, that it will be limited to specific devices
(by manufacturer and model number) and specific circumstances and rules of
operation. Any sort of general heter like "LCD devices are okay" will find
so many exceptions (are there any indicator lamps at all?) that it will be
too cumbersome to implement.

Akiva Miller


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

On Tue, 2010-12-28 at 08:52 -0500, Rich Wolberg wrote:
> 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?

I switched from talking about shabbat musaf to talking about weekday
davening, because that's when this usually happens in my shul (we b"h
get enough people on shabbat morning), but the klal should be pretty
simple to see -- say the intermediate blessings silently, and continue
with retezei when the kohen is ready.

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 06:49:57PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: The answer is simple. The distinction between animals which make milk
: and animals which don't, is well-known to a zoologist, and probably
: to a farmer, but not so much to city folk. So they extended the rule
: to include all animals of a category which should be well-known to any
: G-d-fearing Jew: the animals which require shechita.

I thought gezeiros were a product of mistakes actually made, which is
why someone who doesn't know the history would wonder why there is a
gezeira to protect against X, but not the apparently easier mistake of
Y.

...
: Whew! This was a long post! My apologies to all. The only point I'm
: trying to make is my guess that the next Sanhedrin will probably NOT
: allow any electrical devices beyond those which the poskim currently
: allow. It's just too difficult for the average person to understand the
: differences between the mutar and the assur.

If electricity is only an issue when plugged in, then I don't know if
this is so.

A Sanhedrin coudl prohibit all plugged in devices, and all devices that
do something assur. People already know the difference between keilim
that make light and keilim that hold nuts. All people would need to get
used to is that battery powered (or cold fusion cell) devices that don't
make light or sound (or do boreir, or plant seeds...) are in the same
category as keilim that hold nuts.

I think it's only confusing to us, because we got used to lumping all
electronic devices together. If that's not a given, I don't see the same
impracticality as you suggest.

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

see

http://torahmusings.com/2010/12/e-readers-and-shabbos/

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101228/924921c4/attachment-0001.htm>

As I think many of you know, there is a big issue over what the Rambam
meant by accepting the iqarim. R' Yosef al-Qafih ("Kapach") very strongly
states that the usual translation of "emunah" (or "belief"). Rather,
the Arabic is closer to "to know". That the Rambam expects people to
necessarily come to their beliefs through proof and thus have certainty.

However, R' Meir Treibitz pointed out something interesting in an aside
in his recording at
<http://hashkafacircle.com/shiurim/uncategorized/13-ikkarim-01-ex
istence-of-g-d>.

The first two diberos were heard by everyone miPi haGevurah, the other
611 mitzvos via nevu'as Moshe (Makkor 24a). In the Moreh (2:33), the
Rambam would apparently take that to mean that the first two diberos are
truths a person could apprehend without Toras Moshe. Which would seem to
mean that the first iqarim (however many of them you feel are included in
"Anokhi" and "Lo sihyeh lekha", RMT said three, but I would think iqar
#5 is all about "lo sihyeh") are amenable to knowledge through proof,
but the others are not. To quote (Friedlander's translation):

    There is, however, an opinion of our Sages frequently expressed in
    the Midrashim, and found also in the Talmud, to this effect: The
    Israelites heard the first and the second commandments from God,
    i.e., they learnt the truth of the principles contained in these two
    commandments in the same manner as Moses, and not through Moses. For
    these two principles, the existence of God and His Unity, can be
    arrived at by means of reasoning, and whatever can be established by
    proof is known by the prophet in the same way as by any other person;
    he has no advantage in this respect. These two principles were not
    known through prophecy alone. Comp., "Thou hast been shown to know
    that," etc. (Deut. iv. 34). But the rest of the commandments are of
    an ethical and authoritative character, and do not contain [truths]
    perceived by the intellect.

The Rambam's point is in contrast to the other 611 mitzvos, but I share
RMT's obsevation that the same would logically be true in contrast to
the other iqarim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:59:49AM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: RMB wrote:
: > In any case, my reconstruction appears to be peshat in Sukkah 20a.
...
: >                                                The first time the
: > Torah was forgotten from Israel, Ezra came up from Bavel and
: > reestablished it, when it was forgotten again, Hillel haBavli came
: > up and reestablished it, and when it was forgotten, R' Chiya and
: > his sons came up [also from Bavel] and established it.

: There is another way to understand the specific circumstances under
: which Hillel was needed, which teaches about the Benei Beteirah
: interregnum, as you term it, too....

Abbreviating a thesis by R' SZ Leiman, he writes:
: In short, and doing a tremendous injustice to his talk, there was a
: period, which probably lasted decades, during which the Boethitians
: were in charge of the Beit haMiqdash. They used the Dead Sea sect
: calendar, which is a solar calendar, based on 364 days a year, so that
: every holiday always begins on the same day of the year...

As I wrote RAF privately, this fits the Y-mi, which sometimes refers to
the Beis Issim rather than Baisusim. This would mean some identification
between the Beisusim and the Essenes, the sect discussed by Chazal but
not Josephus with the sect Josephus names but never shows up in Chazal.

I also do not think the two understandings of why Hillel was needed
contradict. Reish Laqish refers to Hillel reestablishing Torah. But it
would be logical if the period in which the Baisusim assumed control
over the Sanhedrin was one which led to the Torah getting forgotten to
the point of needing reestablishment.

What it does do is rob my reference of the point for which I was quoting
it. I used it to suggest that Bavel had a strong Torah community during
the time of the events of Chanukah. However, in this light, the reason
why Torah study was so strong in Bavel in Hillel's day could be because
the religious climate in Israel was such that the talmidei chakhamim
would have descended to Bavel after the events of Chanukah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
mi...@aishdas.org        but by rubbing one stone against another,
http://www.aishdas.org   sparks of fire emerge. 
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz

The following is from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 6

3 [And was so] even when I appeared to Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov 
as the All-sufficing God but had not become known to
them as that which My Name Hashem signifies.

This new revelation of God had been prepared from the very beginning
of Jewish history. All the paths of Jewish history have led up to this
moment. God says:

"I was already Hashem when I appeared to Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov
only as Kale Shaki and did not allow My intended sovereignty as HaShem to
become manifest to them in their own lives.

"You are wondering why things have only become worse, and why
even your mission has served only to push your misery to the utmost
limit. Do you not see that your entire history up to this point has been
a downhill road? Avraham was a Nasi Elokim among the nations, whereas
Ya'akov was an unfortunate, hard-working servant 'who had to toil in
order to get himself a wife and then was forced to perform additional
labor in order to keep her' (see Hoshea 12:13).

"I could have led you on an upward path. Instead of giving Avraham
a son in his hundredth year, I could have established for him a family
by the time he was seventy, and I could have allowed his progeny to
flourish and become a people in happy, favorable circumstances on its
own native soil. But then this people would not have become God's
people, Am HaShem, the people through which God will be revealed as 
HaShem. Then
this people, like all the other peoples, would have been rooted solely in
the world of things that can be seen and touched. Like all the other
peoples, this people would have had only physical foundations, and
would have sought only material power and material greatness, aspiring
to the spiritual and to the moral only to the extent that these were
compatible with, and beneficial to, its material ambitions.

"But this people is not to be like the other nations. Unlike the others,
this people is to be founded solely upon God and upon the fulfillment
of His Will in moral freedom, and is to have an earthly hold and an
earthly standing only from and for this God and this fulfillment."
The idea of a free almighty God and of mankind made free by that
God has vanished from the earth. People and nations have sunk into
materialism in both theory and practice (cf. Commentary above, 3:14).
The emergence of the people of Avraham is to reawaken consciousness
of freedom and to release mankind from the bonds of materialism.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101228/2cdc821e/attachment-0001.htm>

Well, I was trying to make a connection between the two.

1) According to RSZA, all minhagim have a source.
2) Ergo something without a source is not a minhag.

But that leaves the question, what is a source? You said a reliable source; 
well what is a reliable source? How far back, how universally accepted, does 
a book, a chiddush, whatever have to be before it can be accepted as a 
source for a minhag? If a source is simply "Rabbi X said it" than anything 
can be a source, right?

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <>
>
> 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 

RSM wrote (on Areivim but moderator felt I should respond on Avodah):

My (Sony) ebook reader automatically turns itself off if nobody interacts
with it for 30 minutes. On my computers, screensavers cut in after the same
period or less.

 
CM responds:

So which is your point? 1) The computer is chayav for mechikas Shem  2) The
person should be required to interact with the computer at least every 29
minutes without fail (or until Shabbos arrives), because it could not be
that since it will be erased in 30 minutes anyway, you are patur for
mechika if you do it sooner - could it? [If you write on a box containing
dynamite that is timed to explode in 30 minutes but erase it before it
explodes, by your example there would be no ksiva or mechika?]

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101229/65b10a8c/attachment-0001.htm>

In a lengthy post on R & C Chevrot, Rn'CL wrote:
> 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) ...."

If the reference to the pesak about shofar is to the famous pesak of
RYBS, then I think some clarification is needed. RYBS's ruling that it
is better to stay home than to hear shofar in what RnCL calls a "C shul"
was not about not strengthening problematic movements. Indeed, RYBS did
not refer to C (or R) shuls; he spoke about shuls with mixed pews (not,
I note, shuls w/o mechitzot, but shuls w/ mixed pews; today there may be
no difference, but that was not the case in the 1950s when this question
arose. But I digress somewhat.) The point is that the pesak was about
not going to mixed pew synagogues because they lacked the sanctity of a
makom tefillah; not that listening to shofar in such a synagogue would
be strengthening such movements.

Joseph Kaplan 

RJK wrote:
> If the reference to the pesak about shofar is to the famous pesak of
> RYBS, then I think some clarification is needed.  RYBS's ruling that it is
> better to stay home than to hear shofar in what RnCL calls a "C shul" was not
> about not strengthening problematic movements.  Indeed, RYBS did not refer to
> C (or R) shuls; he spoke about shuls with mixed pews (not, I note, shuls
> w/o mechitzot, but shuls w/ mixed pews; today there may be no difference,
> but that was not the case in the 1950s when this question arose. But I
> digress somewhat.)  The point is that the pesak was about not going to mixed
> pew synagogues because they lacked the sanctity of a makom tefillah; not
> that listening to shofar in such a synagogue would be strengthening such
> movements.

The "lack of sanctity of a makom tefilla" doesn't fully explain the
psak though.

For a man, listening to shofar is a mitzvah d'orisa. Nobody objects to
anybody (eg in a hospital ward or at home) fulfilling their obligation to
listen to shofar in a mixed audience. A hospital ward certainly lacks the
sanctity of a makom tefilla. And indeed, I have seen numerous Orthodox
after tephila shofar blowings - ie the type aimed mostly at women (but
frequently not exclusively), held in the shul itself where there is
no particular attempt to stop the sexes mingling, with the women and
the odd man who for some reason still needs to hear shofar all grouped
around the usually male shofar blower.

So what is going on here? A man could, if instructed not to daven, go
into the place simply to hear shofar and fulfil his mitzvah d'orisa and
then daven at home.

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that by designating
something as a shul, those supporting it are claiming that it has the
sanctity of a makom tephila, and then by going there, even solely to
hear shofar and not to daven, the individual is providing some support
or strengthening for that proposition. Perhaps you could phrase it as
lifnei iver? But the reason it can be considered lifnei iver is because
it will cause people to believe that which is halachically not acceptable
is acceptable. And the psak is saying that a man is required to forgo
a mitzvah d'orisa because it will lead people to believe that something
completely different which is halachically not acceptable is acceptable.

This is exactly the same logic that is often utilised regarding accepting
halachic acts from the R or C movements as a whole. That is, if we
recognise these acts (eg we recognise the shofar blowing) then it will
lead others to believe that other acts done by these movements (such as
the way they set up tephila) is acceptable. Whether RYBS distinguished
between different kinds of Conservative shuls is not the point. He may
well have felt that any congregation (whatever they call themselves) that
was careful enough to have separate seating, even without a mechitza, is
not sufficiently problematic as to cause avoidance in relation to other
matters where there may be no halachic problem. But what this example
illustrates is a refusal to look at the individual halachic act (shofar
blowing or analogously performance of tahara) in isolation, and rather an
insistence on linking it to other surrounding halachic acts that in and
of themselves do not, technically, impact on the individual halachic act.
And here the issue is the group. If X the individual whom nobody knows
anything about does Y, which happens to be halachically acceptable, nobody
is necessarily going to assume that if X also does Z, Z is halachically
acceptable and there is no question of lifnei iver being triggered (if
indeed lifnei iver it is). The problem arises if and only if there is a
group granting an imprimatur to X that somehow gives him or her authority.
And hence it is this imprimatur of authority, ie that mixed pews really
do still allow for the sanctity of a makom tephila, that would seem to be
the underlying objection to doing the innocuous (such as hearing shofar).

> 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 226
***************************************

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..."