Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 29

Fri, 22 Feb 2013

• 1. Re: A question for the chevre (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: How do Chabad deal with the Amen of Krias Shema (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: When BD Errs, Who Brings the Sin Offering, AKA the MaHaRal that will not go away (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: How do Chabad deal with the Amen of Krias Shema (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: How do Chabad deal with the Amen of Krias Shema (Allan Engel)
• 6. Re: How do Chabad deal with the Amen of Krias Shema (Liron Kopinsky)
• 7. Identifying Achashverosh and Esther in Secular Sources (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Re: partnership minyanim (Chana Luntz)
• 9. Re: How do Chabad deal with the Amen of Krias Shema (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: How do Chabad deal with the Amen of Krias Shema (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: persian history (Lisa Liel)

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 05:53:48PM +0200, Moshe Zeldman wrote:
: I think the Nefesh haChaim in the perakim is dealing with a not dissimilar
: issue. He attacks the chasidim of his day who give too much weight to
: kavana in mitzvos, and not enough weight to the halachic parameters. He
: mocks the Jew who, by taking so much time to build up a good kavana in
: Kriyas Shema, misses zman kriyas shema...

I don't know where this is. I did searches on he.wikisource.org for "Nefesh
haChaim Sha'ar" (words found at the top of each page of Nefesh haChaim, even
the peraqim between shaarim 3 & 4) with "shema", "bishma", "lishma", "hashma"
"Q"Sh", "BQ"Sh", "LQ"Sh", and "HQ"Sh".

:                                     ... The Nefesh haChaim's proof is the
: halacha that if a person says the words of shemoneh esrei without kavana
: (after the first bracha), b'dieved they're yotzei. But if they have kavana
: but don't actually enunciate the words at all, they're not yotzei. My kasha
: on the Nefesh haChaim is that by the mitzva of Kriyas Shema, I believe it's
: the opposite. If a person can't say the words (he physically can't talk, or
: he's in a dirty place), he's bedieved yotzai by thinking the words. On the
: other hand, if he says the words with no kavana whatsoever, he's NOT yotzei.

Rama 70:1 says this is only the first pasuq. And the MB cites the Levush
saying that the SA agrees. After that, he needs kavanah to be yotzei,
not kavanah of their meaning.

The question is how do the first berakhah of Shemoneh Esrei and the first
pasuq of Shema differ from the rest of their respective mitzvos. And
once you know that, you know what is generalizable to qol haTorah kulah
rather than being avodah shebaleiv specifically.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
mi...@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 20/02/2013 12:32 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Zev Sero wrote:
>     On 19/02/2013 5:09 PM, Dr Isaac Balbin wrote:

>>> How though, as a Chabadnik or anyone else who follows this practice, do
>>> you deal with a Chazan who says the Bracha loudly and clearly.
>>> Do you say it word for word with him, like others?
>>> Do you simply ignore what he said and not answer?

>> It's a problem, not just for Chabad but for everyone, which is precisely why
>> Chabad has the minhag of avoiding it by not being heard.

> I know some shuls, where the rav is an accepted Talmud Chacham, who Davka
> say amen out loud right before shema.

And therefore?  They've paskened the shayla to their own satisfaction;
they've decided that it's not a hefsek after all.  Does that somehow make
the shayla disappear for the whole world?  They can pasken in their shul,
but for the rest of the world it's still a machlokes and a shayla which
one can either confront or avoid.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

RMR wrote me about the topic off-list, and I replied in kind. I have a
problem now that this last email expresses a misunderstanding of what I
said there, presents it as my opinion, and so I need to back fill where
RMR is coming from.

I wrote a point-by-point reply, and then summarized:

> We disagree on how to understand the Maharal on two issues:

> 1- Is the destruction caused by the moreh halakhah mitokh hamishnah because
> his hora'ah is inferior, or that he isn't engaging in talmud Torah? I'm
> arguing that it's not inferiority of hora'ah, because he explicitly says
> that broken hora'ah isn't called moreh halakhah.

Rather, "moreh ta'us". And if it's not moreh halakhah to get the wrong
answer due to a lack of talmud, it's also not moreh halakhah to do so by
ill considered talmud. (Which he later also calls ta'us.)

>                                                  Also, because he is saying
> it's like the am ha'aretz who didn't do shimush, but worse -- and the am
> ha'aretz isn't pasqening.

Also Maharal says that the ill of pasqening from mishnah and neglecting
talmud is "ki ha'olam omeid al haTorah", a reference to Avos 1:2, "al
sheloshah devarim ha'olam omeid". This is a discussion of neglecting
talmud Torah, not a neglect of the right way to pasqen.

Third (as already posted on-list):
} The Maharal compares this group to those who aren't meshamshim
} their rabbanim of the prior paragraph. Again, a discussion of the
} shalsheles hamesorah for pesaq, not that of the masses.

Back to my private email:
> 2- When he talks about the need to be moreh from one's seikhel, is he even
> talking about someone who wasn't deemed competent for hora'ah, just
> deciding for himself what to do in cases his qehillah has a settled pesaq?
> I'm arguing no, since that's not "moreh".

RMR's position allows for some ad absurdum. Somoene in the 8th cent asks
their rav a question, and he asks the gaon. The rav gets a reply, but the
original sho'el isn't convinced, so he does his own thing. RMR's take of
the Maharal and RCVolozhiner is that this guy did the preferable thing.

There is then no notion of pesaq, just rabbinic advice for people to make
up their own minds. And it's better if they do that and violate the ruling
in every code, shu"t and peirush ever written than if they actually act on
emunas chakhamim -- because the alternative is destroying the world.

>                                           Also, if it were all one topic,
> the Maharal would be saying that the Yad is both the minimal learning for
> the masses and yet also insufficient learning for them (since [RMR is]
> unifying talmud Torah and hora'ah in #1).

To clarify:

OT1H, the Yad is the Mishneh Torah, sufficient learning for those of
the masses who lack the time to go elsewhere in depth.

OTOH, RMR has the Maharal saying that had he known that people -- including
the masses who lack the time -- were deciding halakhah for themselves based
only on his code, he would have been upset.

Is it sufficient learning or not?

>                                           Whereas I'm saying it's both
> minimal learning for the masses and insufficient for their posqim. And the
> abuse is when the poseiq doesn't realize he graduated.

And so as I see the Maharal, he is making two very different points:

1- Everyone needs Talmud, not just cutting to the chase with a Qitzur,
   becauase talmud Torah is one of the 3 amudei olam.

2- Someone capable of true hora'ah shouldn't be trying to play safe by
   pasqening out of a codes.
   

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:49:01AM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
: Reb Micha argues that permission is required before one can Pasken, which
: is the purpose of Semicha. But I say, this is not true. The purpose of
: Semicha is to provide permission to Pasken FOR OTHERS...

Which is why I said permission is needed for hora'ah. Not for deciding
halakhah for oneself. Hora'ah is inherently for others.

:                                                        Anyone and EVERYONE
: must engage in Talmud and debate Halacha. If the Posek cannot explain his
: Pesak, we are NOT PERMITTED to accept it, as per the reb Chaim VeLosziner I
: have quoted in other posts...

And as I explained then and again above, the results end up absurd. Then
there is no concept of halachic authority left, ish hayashar be'einav
ya'aseh.

RCV is telling talmidim to try to understand the pesaq they get. Not that
they must understand it or they must reject it. That emunas chakhamim
doesn't mean ignoring talmud Torah.

:                             It is part of the system that compels those who
: followed Beis Din's erronous ruling, to bring THEIR OWN sin offering.

This is only WRT grevious errors. Hil Shegagos 14:1 -- vehoru la`qor guf
migufei Torah. His eg (14:2), BD say it's okay to bow to AZ, to carry
mireshus lereshus on Shabbos, or that bi'ah is mutar with a shomeres yom.

But, if they made a mistake that doesn't rise to that level, like
throwing meireshus lereshus or moshit would be mutar, then they are the
ones chayavim.

: Following a Posek, following a Beis Din, does not exempt one from bringing
: a sin offering; even when it is the Torah, it is HKBH who instructs us to
: follow the BD, to follow the majority.

As I just cited -- in any normal case, actually, it does.

: How does the MaHaRal forcefully posit that RaMBaM would not have published
: his Sefer had he known that its use would lead to people abandoning Talmud
: learning, when RaMBaM himself writes in his intro that his Mishneh Torah be
: used as the text for TSBP? The answer is that we must keep in mind RaMBaMs
: guidelines in Hilchos TT regarding how much time one must dedicate to TT.
: And RaMBaM is not providing guidelines for Poskim but for the entire Jewish
: People.

This actually makes my point.... The entire Jewish People includes those
who aren't experts, are still learning in three thirds, and the Rambam
is telling them to use the Mishneh Torah. When it comes to morei
hora'ah, who the Rambam has focusing on talmud, and thus not primarily
on the Yad, the Maharal is saying that the Rambam would not have them
pasqen from the Yad to the exclusion of using their own talmud.

Both statements couldn't refer to the same class of people. And apparently
you agree here.

: Reb Micha argues that the MaHaRal explains the MeVaLey Olam as referring
: exclusively to Poskim, people who actually get the Halacha correct...

Mavlei olam is anyone who isn't engaging in talmud torah upon which the
world stands. Morei hora'ah who in their caution rely on codes rather
than feel self-secure enough to use their own heads to deal with cases
that might not match up exactly are therefore among the general class
of mavlei olam.

:                   MaHaRal simply says that the PROBLEM is NOT that they GET
: THE HALACHA WRONG, but that they get the METHOD WRONG. THEY HAVE GOT THE
: WRONG IDEA ABOUT HOW TO SERVE GD. HKBH does NOT wish to be served by
: OBEDIENCE but by ENGAGEMENT....

This is RMR, not the Maharal. Our ch of Nesivos Olam says nothing about
engagement.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 09:09:11AM +1100, Dr Isaac Balbin wrote:
: Picture the scenario, ... normally you don't say the Bracha immediately
: before Shema loudly, and in fact are basically inaudible when you are
: Chazan, so that others don't need to be in the conundrum of saying Amen.

: How though, ... do you deal with a Chazan who says the Bracha loudly
: and clearly.

: Do you say it word for word with him, like others?

I would think this best solves the problem. You usually try to avoid the
machloqes about saying amein, and this does so. You don't need to hear his
berakhah as you're making your own.

: With Go-al Yisroel, which I understand you are meant to say audibly,
: many finish their own bracha and commence Shemoneh Esreh so that they
: won't be in a position to say Amen.

Not everyone ends Ga'al Yisrael audibly either. RAZZ has a good discussion
at http://www.ou.org/index.php/jewish_action/article/50278 .

He notes that the old minhag was to be quiet, and there are numberous
later rabbanim who pushed restoring this -- RYBS, the Satmar Rav, R'
SY Weinberg, R YZ Dushinsky, RSZA (who also quotes R Henken), R' Vozner,
RALichtenstein, and the list goes on.

The AhS would have you end the berakhah out loud, but notes that this was
not the common minhag.

Here's the relevent snippet most parallel to what you asked about Birkhas
Ahavah:
    To recap: This entire discussion is relevant only to those who follow
    the Rema; those who follow the ruling of the Mechaber conclude Ga'al
    Yisrael out loud, do not answer Amen and proceed directly to Shemoneh
    Esrei. However, the Rema ruled that one is required to recite Amen,
    even though this may appear to be an interruption. Because many
    congregants want to satisfy most halachic opinions on the matter,
    various ways of conducting oneself when reciting Ga'al Yisrael
    have evolved. Options include finishing Ga'al Yisrael before the
    sha"tz and answering Amen to his berachah (like the Rema suggests)
    or avoiding the obligation to say Amen by beginning Shemonei Esrei
    before the sha"tz concludes Ga'al Yisrael, by concluding Ga'al
    Yisrael together with the sha"tz or by having the sha"tz complete
    the berachah silently.

Last time we discussed this, I wondered how amein /could/ be considered
a hefseiq. We justified the entire Hashkeveinu as a Ge'ulah arickhta,
how would confirming Ge'ulah itself with an "amein" be worse?

Perhaps this question only works for Maariv, which:
1- Is a "reshus", or at least was once; and
2- In at least one variant of Nusach EY, they didn't even try for semichus
   ge'ulah letefillah. It's mentioned in Y-mi Berakhos. They held that the
   iqar QSh at night is in Maariv, and therefore they said Shema at the
   end -- after Shemoneh Esrei. (Which in EY actually had 18 berakhos,
   even after Velameshumadim was added.)

: The one Bracha where everyone says Amen after, is Boneh Berachamov
: in Benching.

Ashkenazim do this to separate between Birkhas haMazon deOraisa and the
4th berakhah. Sepharadim might have a second reason, to wit:
: Sefardim of course have no issue saying Amen after their own Brachos
: as per their Rishonim/Poskim.

To reiterate RAE's point, at the end of a series of berakhos semuchos
lechavertos, al pi haRambam. I don't think HaTov vehaMeitiv is written
as a berakhah hasemuchah -- it begins with "barukh". But there is only
one "barukh", so I'm not sure if being derabbanan set it apart from the
series in this way too.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

The Rambam addresses this directly (Hil Berochos 1:17)

*?,??*  ???? ???? ??? ????? ???????, ???? ????? ???? ???? ??????--????
????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??????, ?????? ??? ?????; ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??
????, ??? ???? ???????.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/2501n.htm



On 20 February 2013 23:26, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote: I don't
think HaTov vehaMeitiv is written as a berakhah hasemuchah -- it begins
with "barukh". But there is only one "barukh", so I'm not sure if being
derabbanan set it apart from the series in this way too.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130220/ddba94a5/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Zev Sero wrote:

> On 20/02/2013 12:32 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013, Zev Sero wrote:
>>     On 19/02/2013 5:09 PM, Dr Isaac Balbin wrote:
>>
>
>  How though, as a Chabadnik or anyone else who follows this practice, do
>>>> you deal with a Chazan who says the Bracha loudly and clearly.
>>>> Do you say it word for word with him, like others?
>>>> Do you simply ignore what he said and not answer?
>>>>
>>>
>  It's a problem, not just for Chabad but for everyone, which is precisely
>>> why
>>> Chabad has the minhag of avoiding it by not being heard.
>>>
>>
>  I know some shuls, where the rav is an accepted Talmud Chacham, who Davka
>> say amen out loud right before shema.
>>
>
> And therefore?  They've paskened the shayla to their own satisfaction;
> they've decided that it's not a hefsek after all.  Does that somehow make
> the shayla disappear for the whole world?  They can pasken in their shul,
> but for the rest of the world it's still a machlokes and a shayla which
> one can either confront or avoid.
>
> And therefore you can't say it's a problem for everyone. There are
different valid shittot. This shul, I think, Davka say amen out loud to
show that they believe it to be universal Halacha that it is not a hefsek,
but they are not public ally saying that anyone who holds differently is
acting problematically.

Kol tuv,
Liron


-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130221/677189ea/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://tinyurl.com/bblfpzm

In this article, we will explain how scholars were finally able to 
identify Achashverosh in secular sources. We will also show that 
Esther can be identified in secular sources as well. Finally, we will 
utilize these sources to shed light on the story of the Megillah.

Before we get to these sources, we have to point out that an 
important clue to the identity of Achashverosh is found in the book 
of Ezra. Achashverosh is mentioned at Ezra 4:6 in the context of 
other Persian kings. The simplest understanding of Ezra 4:6 and its 
surrounding verses is that Achashverosh is the Persian king who 
reigned after the Daryavesh who rebuilt the Temple,[1] but before 
Artachshasta. But what about the secular sources? Was there any 
Persian king known as Achashverosh or something close to that in these sources?
      Until the 19th century, a search in secular sources for a 
Persian king named Achashverosh or something close to that would have 
been an unsuccessful one. Our knowledge of the Persian kings from the 
Biblical period was coming entirely from the writings of Greek 
historians, and none of the names that they recorded were close to 
Achashverosh. The Greek historians (Herodotus, mid-5th cent. BCE, and 
the others who came after him) described the following Persian kings 
from the Biblical period: Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes.

See the above URL for more. YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130221/8fc654f7/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB writes:
>The BY is a stronger defense of the minhag than the SA. It would seem from
>the BY that given a choice, he wouldn't end the minhag. Whereas the SA's
>speaking of "limud zekhus" implies to me a disapproval with the minhag,
>and just a way to judge those who follow it more favorably.

Yes, agreed.

But what is far more important is not the minhag in question, but the
reasons the BY gives to justify the minhag.

Basically they are twofold:

a) based on a teshuva of the Rashba and the Ra'avid - there is no problem
having a katan be motzei a gadol in tephila, because the katan's obligation
is d'rabbanan, and so is the gadol's - so the only issue is kovod hatzibbur,
and if the community waives kovod hatzibbur, then it is OK.

b) based on his own reasoning, Arvit is reshut and that is why it is OK, but
where there is a question of being motzei somebody else by a tephilat chova,
such as by shachrit, musaf and mincha (and even perhaps, as per the Maharal
the Darchei Moshe brings and the Dagul Mervava, Arvit of Friday night), then
there is a problem.

So let's analyse these two in turn:

Re a) - it might help if I brought the language of the Rashba directly -
here it is (after the point where he discusses, and rejects, being metzaref
a katan to a minyan):

??"? ????"? ??? ? ???? ???
...  ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ????
??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??????. ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??
???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??????. ????????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???
?????.  ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? (?"? ?? ?"? ?) ????? ???? ???? ??????
???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????. ??? ?? ????. ?? ??? ???? ??? ?"?
?????? ?????? ????? ??.

Shut HaRashba Chelek 1 siman 239
"...But to exempt others since the brachot and tephila are derabbanan and a
katan who has reached the age of chinuch is rabbinically obligated it is
possible to say that one who is obligated rabbinically can exempt one who is
obligated rabbinically this being when there is ten and it is fit for
kedusha. And therefore we learn that because of kovod hatzibbur we do not
allow a gnai [disgrace] to the community that a katan exempts them. And in
the Yerushalmi it is established that this is even a katan who has brought
two hairs. And it is brought like the version in Chullin (perek kama daf
24b) that when his beard is full he is fitting to be appointed shalich
tzibbur and to go before the ark and to duchen. And until then not. Until
here is the language of the Rav [Ra'avid] and his words are correct and to
be relied upon."

Now as Rav Ovadiah notes, this can be assumed to be following the Rashba's
own shita which is that katanim are themselves obligated rabbinically (and
it is not just that their father is obligated), whereas the majority of
poskim hold differently -- and we can understand, following the majority of
poskim, why the Beis Yosef would be unhappy with this shita, because it is
relying on a minority position about the obligations of katanim. (Rather
ironically following the Ra'avid and Rashba mean that a woman's situation is
halachically stronger than a katan, because she is, according to the
majority position, obligated rabbinically in tephila).

So one can understand the Beis Yosef's fundamental discomfort (and the
objection of the Rema) to the practice as being sourced in relying on a
minority shita regarding the level of obligation of a katan. And hence it
can be understood that for an even lower level tephila, such as pesukei
d'zimra, there might be even less objection. Noting of course that he rules
in Shulchan Aruch siman 53 si'if 6 that for kovod hatzibbur you should only
have somebody appointed to the position of Shatz if he has a full beard, and
that only on a causal basis should you have somebody who has merely brought
two hairs, so clearly there is a lot of discomfort about waiving kovod
hatzibbur even to allow a teenager to daven regularly.

Regarding b) -- while it is true that Arvit is deemed reshut when compared to
shachrit, musaf and mincha, it is of course not really so reshut -- the
dominant position being that it is pretty close to chova. So if it is even
begrudgingly OK to allow a katan to do Arvit, because and only because it is
on a lower level than shachrit, mincha and mussaf, then it logically
suggests that there is no problem in a katan doing psukei d'zimra, which
everybody would agree is a lower level of obligation than Arvit.  And the
discomfort of the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema may well stem from the fact
that they really hold that Arvit is chova, and should in this regard be
equivalent to shachrit and mincha.

>What is see is that the Rama and the SA agree that in principle, having
>a qatan as a shaliach tzibur is a bad idea. The SA's relationship to
>existing minhag aside, he still stands pretty far from advocating it
>for those who have no such minhag.

What we see from the Rema and SA is that in principle, they both agree that
having a katan as a shaliach tzibbur for *Arvit* is a bad idea.

They do not directly speak to the question regarding having a katan lead the
community for psukei d'zimra - which is what is extremely widely practiced
amongst Sephardim of many different communities.

Ie the common Sephardi psak would appear to be based on an understanding
that the reason for the Shulchan Aruch's discomfort with katanim leading
Arvit is the flipside of the reasons given to possibly allow the minhag of
Arvit by the Beis Yosef either:

a) the issue is kovod hatzibbur, and kovod hatzibbur questions do not apply
to psukei d'zimra; or
b) Arvit is a lower level tephila than shachris or mincha and hence psukei
d'zimra which is an even lower level tephila than Arvit there is no reason
anyone would forbid.

Thus there is no problem at all for a katan to lead psukei d'zimra.

...
>: Now Rabbi Freudel does note this, but appears to treat it as some sort of
>: halachic aberration...

>But isn't he following the SA in that attitude?

No.

Firstly Rabbi Freudel says that there is nothing in the sources which
applies the concept of kovod hatzibbur to any form of tephila (only to Torah
reading, as per gemora Megilla 23a) - when the Beis Yosef quotes the Rashba,
who himself quotes and giving his agreement to the Ra'avid, who specifically
raises kovod hatzibbur as the operative principle at work that rules out
katanim (and it is all over the literature regarding beards).

Secondly, Rabbi Freudel insists that psukei d'zimra is on the same level as
all the other tephilot in terms of who can lead it, and therefore he cannot
understand any justification for Sephardim having katanim lead it.  And to
the extent that he is prepared to acknowledge that there is an extant minhag
amongst Sephardim to have katanim lead it, he takes the attitude towards
*psukei d'zimra* which the Shulchan Aruch takes towards *Arvit*.  Ie what he
appears to believe that what the Shulchan Aruch was really saying (without
quoting the SA) was that Arvit on motzei Shabbat and psukei d'zimra are
problematic - and that when the Rema was really saying there is no such
minhag amongst Ashenazim and that you shouldn't institute it - he was saying
both Arvit on Motzei Shabbat and psukei d'zimra.

But given that the Beit Yosef brings as his own reason, on top of that of
the Ra'avid/ Rashba, why one might allow a katan to take Arvit, even if only
b'dieved, is because it is a lower level of obligation than Shachrit and
Mincha (reshut versus chova), it is far more logical to deduce that he would
hold that psukei d'zimra was mutar l'chatchila - and indeed that is the way
the Sephardi poskim assume - I quoted Rav Uzziel who said it explicitly.  I
am yet to find a Rav Ovadiah who says this - but the point is, given how
widespread the minhag is, the chances that Rav Ovadiah himself did not say
psukei d'zimra as a katan is to my mind pretty small.  If this was something
that was in any way objectionable, or bideved, it would need to be all over
the Sephardi poskim.  It is not.  Therefore, it is pretty clear that they
all understand the Shulchan Aruch as saying - Arvit on Motzei Shabbas,
perhaps a bit iffy, psukei d'zimra - absolutely fine.

And if you accept that the Sephardim do hold that way, you have to say that
the Rema missed a trick here in disagreeing with the Shulchan Aruch, because
he really held for Ashkenazim not only is the minhag he disagrees with -
Arvit on Motzei Shabbas, a problem, but also leading psukei d'zimra.  But
the Rema certainly doesn't say that, what he does specifically bring is that
there is a prohibition on a katan leading Arvit of *Shabbat* even on the
night of his Barmitzvah.  And indeed, the explanation from the Dagul
Mervava, not exactly a Sephardi posek, suggests that the Dagul Mervava at
least sees the real question as being whether you exempt somebody by virtue
of leading the particular service or not- making psukei d'zimra apparently
completely mutar.

That is, Rabbi Freundel is perforce forced to make a distinction between
Sephardi and Ashenazi halacha that need by no means to be read into the Rema
or any of the Ashkenazi line of poskening - given that the more natural way
of understanding it is that the Rema and the Shulchan Aruch basically agree
that psukei d'zimra is fine for a katan to say and indeed you could start a
custom of having a katan say it if you hadn't in the past, but for Arvit if
there is a minhag for a katan to say it, you do not have to nullify the
minhag, because there is something on which to rely, but it is not a minhag
to be created l'hatchila. 

But instead of tackling this BY, Shulchan Aruch, Rema (and indeed Rashba and
Ra'avid) head on, Rabbi Freundel quotes what is to my mind an irrelevant
Meiri and the Tosephta regarding having as a shaliach only a man with a full
beard.  Not that the beard halacha is irrelevant, it is much discussed in
the poskim and indeed the Shulchan Aruch himself rules that this relates
only to a fixed shatz and because of kovod hatzibbur.  And as mentioned, the
Bach I quoted links it to the gemora in Shabbas that having a full beard is
the sign of a beautiful form (as, if you read the gemora there, opposed to a
eunuch - interesting question being whether there are poskim who would not
permit a saris to lead the davening, either at all or as a fixed shatz),
while there are those who understand it to mean somebody of the age and
stature that he could have a full beard (the sort of person you would send
in front of a king of flesh and blood). Tosphos reconciles various gemoras
to say that this requirement for a beard (or possibility of a beard) is only
on fast days and the like. It is not a small halachic topic.  But it is
rather odd to quote the Tospheta in isolation and try to learn something out
from "smuchin" - the juxtaposition of various halachos regarding men and
women in a Tosephta, given the context of all this later literature and the
general nature of the Tosephta. 

But most fundamentally problematic to my mind, is that Rav Freundel
effectively comes out and says that what most Sephardim do in allowing
katanim to say psukei d'zimra is wrong - based inter alia on a Meiri and a
tosephta.  Not by demonstrating that Ashkenazi psak is different from
Sephardi psak because it is rooted in  different rishonic principles (which
is the usual way you get to the differences) but wrong in principle, and all
without engaging with the fundamental sephardi line of psak on the subject
of katanim.



RBF:
>> Yet there has, to the best of my knowledge and research, not been any
>> formal attempt to discuss in writing whether these practices are or are not
>> Halakhic. In effect, Halakhah has been the silent partner in the development
>> of Partnership Minyanim.

And RDR responded:
> I don't subscribe to Areivim, and maybe this has been said there, but to my
> mind halachic responses to partnership minyanim miss the point.  
> Partnership minyanim are a watered down version of the critique of
> orthodoxy that goes back to the egalitarian movement: in a world in which
> men and women are treated the same in so many other domains, why does
> Judaism >not assign equal status to women? And that is a moral critique, not
> a legal critique.

> I think moral critiques deserve moral responses.  And I think this
> particular moral response has to start with a fundamental theological
> question: why do we have two sexes? Why didn't God avoid the issue by
> creating (treating and creating are only one letter apart) men and women
> the same?

The problem with moral responses is that there can be any number of them -
many of which you may not find satisfying. For example, a moral response
to the above question could be along the lines of:

- for the same moral reason that Hashem created the world so that the
 poor shall never cease from the land (Devarim 15:11); or

- for the same moral reason that Hashem did not create Adam knowing about
  electricity, antibiotics and indoor plumbing, all of which would have
  made the lives of his immediate descendants infinitely more comfortable.

You may not like these moral responses - but there are those who do,
and those who do will then predicate their actions on these moral
understandings and you have few tools to assert their rightness or
wrongness. As Sir Thomas More is deemed to have said in A Man for All
Seasons:

"The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain
sailing, I cannot navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thicket of the law,
oh, there I'm a forester. ..." and "This country's planted thick with
laws from coast to coast... and if you cut them down-... d'you really
think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes,
I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."

That is the moral response to the critique of mere legal critique.
But the legal critique needs to be a good one, not merely a exercise of
cutting down of trees to get to the Devil - even if Devil it may be.
Hence purported legal critiques based on certain moral positions may
in fact require legal responses for the moral reason of protecting
the forest.

Regards
Chana

On 21/02/2013 1:18 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:

>>>> It's a problem, not just for Chabad but for everyone, which is precisely
>>>> why Chabad has the minhag of avoiding it by not being heard.

>>> I know some shuls, where the rav is an accepted Talmud Chacham, who Davka
>>> say amen out loud right before shema.
  
>> And therefore?

> And therefore you can't say it's a problem for everyone. There are different
> valid shittot.

That there are different valid shittot is precisely why it *is* a problem.
Even if this rov has paskened it, he hasn't made it go away.  He can't -- and
surely doesn't -- say it's not a problem.  He's just dealt with it by boldly
taking one side, that he thinks has more weight than the other.


> This shul, I think, Davka say amen out loud to show that they believe it
> to be universal Halacha that it is not a hefsek,

I don't see how they can say that.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 07:01:33AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> That there are different valid shittot is precisely why it *is* a problem.
> Even if this rov has paskened it, he hasn't made it go away...

Actually, he does make the problem go away. The problem is only for people
who feel there are insufficient grounds to pasqen one way or the other,
and thus treat the matter as a doubt to be avoided.

The diagonal mezuzah to avoid hanging it kemin nagar is a rarity among
machloqsei rishonim. Usually we follow this shitah or that, and not attempt
to accomodate or worry about every tzad of a machloqes. For that matter
compromise or machloqes-as-unresolved-safeiq doesn't become common until
the late 19th cent in Lithuania (think Brisk, the MB, etc...)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

I find it interesting that First speaks of "the simplest understanding 
of Ezra 4:6 without quoting the verse itself, and the surrounding 
verses.  In this way, the reader is left with the choice of either 
looking it up himself, or taking First's word for it.  So in order to 
make this easier for at least readers of Areivim, let's have a look.

*4* Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of 
Judah, and harried them while they were building,
*5* and hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all 
the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of 
Persia.
*6* And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote 
they an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. *{S}*
*7* And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and 
the rest of his companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the 
writing of the letter was written in the Aramaic character, and set 
forth in the Aramaic tongue. *{P}*


Copied from Machon Mamre (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt35a04.htm).

First appears to be using the same oversimplistic reading methodology 
used by advocates of the documentary hypothesis when he says that "The 
simplest understanding of Ezra 4:6 and its surrounding verses is that 
Achashverosh is the Persian king who reigned after the Daryavesh who 
rebuilt the Temple, but before Artachshasta."  In fact, the opposite is 
true.

The enemies of the Jews hired counselors against us from the time of 
Cyrus through the time of Darius the Persian.  Which means that they 
*stopped* hiring those counselors after the time of Darius the Persian.  
So if those counselors wrote accusations against us during the reign of 
Ahasuerus, Ahasuerus *must* have reigned between Cyrus and Darius.

Of course, it's possible that it was the enemies themselves who wrote 
those accusations, and not the counselors, but if so, it's an entirely 
different subject, and the text first tells us about counselors who were 
hired from the time of Cyrus to the time of Darius, and then talks about 
accusations which were written.  If that's so, there's no chronological 
order involved.  It would be like me saying: "Ron Paul served as a 
Congressman from Bill Clinton's presidency through Barack Obama's 
presidency.  Paul ran for president in 2008."  That's completely true.  
But reading it the way First is reading Ezra would suggest that he ran 
for president *after* Obama's presidency.  Which is factually incorrect.

That's far from the only problem with First's analysis.  He attributes 
his contra-Chazal view of Persian history to a number of Jewish scholars 
purely on the basis of them agreeing that the name Achashveirosh and the 
name Xerxes are the same.  But that's a truism that I don't think anyone 
disagrees with.  It doesn't mean that Achashveirosh/Xerxes reigned 
*after* Bayit Sheni was built.  It's been many years since I read R' 
Avigdor Miller's history series, but I'm willing to assert that he would 
have been greatly offended by First's suggestion that he agreed with the 
Greek version of history and disagreed with the Jewish one.

Lisa


On 2/21/2013 8:37 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> Given that Lisa and I are problem boring most of the readers with our 
> discussion of Persian history I only wish to point out the latest 
> seforim blog
>
> http://seforim.blogspot.co.il/
> *Identifying Achashverosh and Esther in Secular Sources *
> *By Mitchell First *
>
> He also concludes that Achashverosh is Xerxes in part based on
>
> "The simplest understanding of Ezra 4:6 and its surrounding verses is 
> that Achashverosh is the Persian king who reigned after the Daryavesh 
> who rebuilt the Temple, but before Artachshasta."
>
> Hence the order of kings as seen in Tanach is
> Darius
> Xerxes (Achasverosh)
> Artaxeres (Artachashta)
>
> He also recognizes that this is not in accordance with Chazal who 
> assume that Achasverosh is before Darius
> As previously pointed out a difference is whether Purim occurred 
> before or after the rebuilding of the Temple
>
> -- 
> Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130222/2cae158f/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 29
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)