Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 60

Mon, 08 Apr 2013

• 1. Re: Proper Attire for Shabbos (Simon Montagu)
• 2. Proper Attire for Shabbos (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Re: Proper Attire for Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Proper Attire for Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Proper Attire for Shabbos (Simon Montagu)
• 6. Rebbi Yehoshua was NOT Ordered to wear shoes, eat or bathe on His YK (Meir Rabi)
• 7. Nadav and Avihu, Bechira Chofshis, Encountering HKBH via our Intellect, Tzelem Elokim (Meir Rabi)
• 8. kitniyot errors (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Israel Torah community (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Fwd: Proper Attire for Shabbos (Dorron Katzin)
• 11. Re: Which Day is YK? Defying BD (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 12. Re: Why did RY not agree to accept RG ruling earlier? (Arie Folger)
• 13. Re: (Avodah] Proper Attire for Shabbos (D&E-H Bannett)

On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:

> This Shabbos a fellow came into the Hashkama Minyan I run at the YI of J
> in Brooklyn a bit late.  I immediately pegged him as an Israeli.  Why?
>  Because of the way he was dressed.  He was wearing a white shirt, no tie,
>  dressy jeans,  Timberland type boots (See http://tinyurl.com/24okkte),
> no jacket, and a kipah which IMO was much too small.


The article that you link to below, http://www.stevens.edu/golem/**
llevine/Casual%20Saturday.pdf<http://ww
w.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/Casual%20Saturday.pdf>,
acknowledges that "In Israel it is accepted in dati leumi circles to wear
white open collar shirts without a jacket and tie on Shabbat", and then
immediately states that "it would not seem appropriate for Americans to
follow this practice" and in the next paragraph "Shabbat is still Shabbat
regardless of the calendar or location".

The author doesn't directly address the case of an Israeli in Brooklyn, but
if Americans should dress appropriately for Shabbat by American standards
regardless of location, it seems to follow that Israelis should dress
appropriately for Shabbat by Israeli standards even in America.

If I may quote RTK from
http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5763/5763winter/WHOWILLC.PDF:

'Another time, on a Friday night at the Kotel, we saw a group of students
from
Yeshivat Hakotel in their short-sleeved white shirts and black pants. My
father
said to me, ?Look at those bachurim. They look so Shabbosdik, and they?re
dressed appropriately for this country. It?s a pity our community didn?t
adopt
their style of dress in Eretz Yisrael.?'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130408/c2368b4a/attachment-0001.htm>

At 07:26 PM 4/7/2013, Ben Waxman wrote:

>You're talking about someone who obviously doesn't understand American
>norms (because his English is poor), and who is used to the Israeli
>scene where his clothes would be acceptable in many places. Maybe he
>didn't get that when in Rome . . . .

Actually,  when he did speak a few words to me in English,  his 
English was not bad at all.  His spoke English like an American.

I know that "his clothes would be acceptable in many places" in 
Israel.  I have never understood how or why this mode of dress on 
Shabbos became acceptable in EY in any place.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130407/02eb8288/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 08:27:10PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> I know that "his clothes would be acceptable in many places" in Israel.  
> I have never understood how or why this mode of dress on Shabbos became 
> acceptable in EY in any place.

If it it acceptable at the PM's office, why not?

Which raises an interesting question debated once on scjm... What about
Shabbos attire in Scottland. When meeting the queen, a true Scott would
dress in traditional formal clothes, including tartan and kilt. So, is
there a heter to dress for shul, on Shabbos no less (!), in anything less?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 7/04/2013 8:27 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> At 07:26 PM 4/7/2013, Ben Waxman wrote:
>
>> You're talking about someone who obviously doesn't understand American
>> norms (because his English is poor), and who is used to the Israeli
>> scene where his clothes would be acceptable in many places. Maybe he
>> didn't get that when in Rome . . . .
>
> Actually,  when he did speak a few words to me in English,  his English was not bad at all.  His spoke English like an American.
>
> I know that "his clothes would be acceptable in many places" in
> Israel.  I have never understood how or why this mode of dress on
> Shabbos became acceptable in EY in any place.

Why on earth wouldn't it be?  What is inappropriate about it?  What do you
think they *should* wear, and why?

-- 
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 Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> Shabbos attire in Scottland. When meeting the queen, a true Scott would
> dress in traditional formal clothes, including tartan and kilt. So, is
> there a heter to dress for shul, on Shabbos no less (!), in anything less?
>

Excuse me if I'm being dense and taking seriously something which was
intended as a joke, but I don't think this is an accurate description of
metzi'ut. See e.g.
http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/109223-crowd
s-expected-as-queen-pays-royal-jubilee-visit-to-city-centre/--
lots of people meeting the Queen YRH in Glasgow, and I only saw one
kilt.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130408/3a6be731/attachment-0001.htm>

Rabbi Teitz proposes that I make [too] much of the fact that Rabban Gamliel
did not require that R. Yehoshua eat or wear leather shoes on the latter's
computed Yom Kippur.

I say, that is a matter of opinion, and that my analysis and explanation of
the Sugya ought not be evaluated by such flimsy considerations.

Rabbi Teitz is not pleased that my novel conclusion is not mentioned nor
even hinted at by anyone in the nearly two millennia since the incident.

It would appear that I am guilty as charged [although it has been suggested
to me offline that such an opinion has been seen/heard before] - but it is
surprising that true Talmudists and seekers of truth raise such charges in
order to justify why an exposition is not worthy of consideration. Think of
all the scholars who would be put down and all the Seforim published and
notes compiled that would be trashed, by application of such a guide.

Rabbi Teitz believes that I overlook the fact that RG wanted a public act
on the part of RY.

I must say in response to this last charge that, an old carpenters adage
falls to mind, MEASURE TWICE,  CUT ONCE, in this case perhaps it might be
better to read my piece again .... - Agav Churfei Lo Dok - Rabbi Teitz did
not notice my observation  -  ?Rabon Gamliel was simply concerned that the
split between himself and Rebbi Yehoshua which was already well known,
[which also explains why Rabon Gamliel was concerned only with Rebbi
Yehoshua and not the other sages who also disagreed with him] might well be
magnified and he feared that this argument about which day was Yom Kippur
would become a flashpoint triggering major civil unrest and strife.

He therefore decided to create the impression that there was full agreement
between them about which day was YKippur, even though he knew that Rebbi
Yehoshua would be keeping his own day as YKippur. This would be
accomplished by having Rebbi Yehoshua carry his stick and his money, which
would be interpreted by the masses as compliance with Rabbon Gamliel, even
though in actual fact Rebbi Yehoshua would be keeping his own day and could
easily sidestep any desecration of carrying his stick and his money.



Regarding Rabbi Teitzs observation that, eating, by its very nature, is
done privately and that RG certainly would not have asked RY to be eat in
public, whereas walking through the streets and carrying is as public an
act as can be;  -  I respond, wearing leather shoes is also in the public
arena, and a select few who would witness the private LeChaim between TG
and RY, would have been more than enough to generate the public awareness
that would quell any lingering doubts.

Rabbi Teitz is probably correct - HAD RG caused RY to stop, and then
continue to walk indoors, this would begin a new Melacha of carrying from
the Public to the Private domain. I say probably because there is certainly
a dispute if stopping in such circumstances is Omed LeKaTef or Omed LaFush.
[besides the option of resting, unobtrusively, his stick on the thresh-hold
as he enters]
But let us agree that it IS Omed LaFush  -   we still DON?T KNOW IF RG
caused RY to stop or not.
Permitting me to momentarily wear Reb Zevs hat, I might say   -  Had Rabbi
Teitz been there at that time, he may well have advised RG to do so; but
would RG have heeded Rabbie Teitzs advice? I think not. As I explained he
DID NOT WANT RY to do anything more than make a SHOW so as to prevent a
split in the community.


I should also add that there is no point in engaging in fanciful
explanations, unless they provide value by explaining unanswered questions
and are based upon very well documented and sound Halachic principles. I
have diligently followed such an approach and furnished all the required
information; and I am surprised that those experienced in Talmudic and
Halachic process deem my considerations unworthy of robust
counter-arguments but seek alternative devices.

I do not wish to openly contradict Talmidei Chachamim, so let me simply
repeat the words of the Gemara rh 25A, Amar Leih, Rebbi TarSheNi LoMar
LeFaNecha Davar Achad ShaLiMadTani; Amar Leih Amor. Amar Lo HaRey Hu Omer
Atem Atem Atem
I am fairly sure that ShaLiMadTani  means  - that you taught me. This means
that RY had forgotten his own Derasha and that Rebbi Akiva sought his
permission to speak in the most delicate terms, as I shall explain.

R Akiva was concerned not to offend in any way and was most mindful that in
these circumstances offence might readily be taken or caused. He therefore
chose his words most carefully and said "yesh li lilmod shekol ma she'asa
RG asuy," rather than intimate even by the most subtle reference that RY
had forgotten what he himself had taught, which might be interpreted as an
allusion that RY was too personally engaged in this conflict, as per the
famous story ? was it about the Shach who when arguing his case in a Din
Torah forgot his own ruling which the Dayan knew and followed in Paskening
against the Shach. Therefore he said the far more neutral, "halo limadtanu
shekol ma she'asa RG asuy"


Reb Micha, I alter the subject in order to better reflect the particular
issue being addressed, since there are quite a few sub-topics that
circulate around our discussion; if you wish to maintain the original
subject then I certainly dont mind alterations you might make to the
subject line

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130408/8ac38ef3/attachment-0001.htm>

Reb Micha wonders about R' Eliezer's comment (quoted by Rashi) that Nadav
and Avihu only died because they pasqened without consulting Moshe Rabbenu.
[BTW, where is this Rashi?]

Reb Micha presents this as proof that Kevod HaRav is a greater priority
than intellectually encountering G-d; and he sees this as contradicting my
understanding that the be all and end all of being in Hashem's "Image" and
being creatures with bechirah chofshis, is to promote an intellectual
encounter with HKBH.

I respond to Reb Micha: It is quite plain, that no intellectual engagement
can be deemed balanced and wholesome when the primary master and teacher is
not consulted. And I hasten to add that consultation does not mean blind
acceptance.



Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130408/77af1b60/attachment-0001.htm>

<<Which also addresses RMR's earlier claim that tannaim vs amoraim is a
convention due to kavod, not a hard-n-fast rule. (I think following R'
Chaim Brisker.) Kayadua, the Rambam makes the mishnah and gemara firm
landmarks because of their universal acceptance. And the CI places a
line between the two millenia of Torah, including the tannaim, and the
two millenia of mashiach, which begins with the amoraim. These acharonim
consider era changes legally binding as well.>>

Again, I stress that as far as I know CI is a daas yachid before and after
his time.
AS we have discussed many times the 2000 year mark in fact does not
coincide with any
break in generations.
The reasons that amoraim dont disagree with tannaim has been debated by
several gedolim.
Though some metion rishonim not disagreeing with geonim in practice they
did disagree

Finally as to achronim not disagreeing with rishonim I would think everyone
agrees that it is kavod and not halacha. The Gra (and Shaagas Aryeh among
others) disagreed with rishonim.
I had a debate with a rabbi about the Maharil and other early Eastern
Europe poskim.
I consider them as achronim even though they lived at the same time as
rishonim in Spain while he considers them as rishonim. As far as I am
concened our disagreement is semantic. Is Micha making this into a
halakachic decision?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130408/7e5e5465/attachment-0001.htm>

<<The fact is that regarding Chaluka in Israel, the Chasam Sofer ( Hiddushim
of Chasam Sofer to Sukkah (36a), s.v. Etrog hakushi) would seem to have
been very much opposed.>>

The Avnei Nezer also states that the mitzvah of yishuv EY applies to
providing some economic benefit to the population in EY

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130408/bca570dd/attachment-0001.htm>

Professor Levine wrote:  "I have never understood how or why this mode of
dress on Shabbos became acceptable in EY in any place."

Perhaps heat in the summer (think back to before air conditioning)?

Or the expense of a suit as compared to slacks and a white shirt?

Or as R. Montagu wrote earlier today:

If I may quote RTK from
http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5763/5763winter/WHOWILLC.PDF:

'Another time, on a Friday night at the Kotel, we saw a group of students
from Yeshivat Hakotel in their short-sleeved white shirts and black pants.
My father said to me, ?Look at those bachurim. They look so Shabbosdik, and
they?re dressed appropriately for this country. It?s a pity our community
didn?t adopt their style of dress in Eretz Yisrael.?'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130408/11345e16/attachment-0001.htm>

    In a recent post on the above subject, I took issue with R. Meir Rabi's
    interpretation of the confrontation of Rabban Gamliel and R. Yehoshua,
    and referred to RMR's ihterpretation as "fanciful."  While my intent
    was to underline the fact that his pshat was so novel as not to have
    been even hinted at by anyone in the two millennia since the mishna was
    recorded, I realize that the term I used was improper.  I apologize for
    its use, and ask RMR for his mechila if I hurt him by its use.

    On the matter of his interpretation, RMR made repeated reference to
    RY's having forgotten the d'rasha of "atem afilu shog'gin, atem afilu
    muta'in, atem afilu meizidin" until R. Akiva reminded him of it.  It
    would certainly seem to be so from the baraisa quoted in the g'mara, in
    which RA prefaces his remarks with "tarsheini lomar l'fanecha davar
    echad shelimad'tani."  Yet in the mishna, where the essence of this
    limud is quoted by RA to RY, there is no intimation that it was a
    reminder; RA says to RY "yesh li lilmod," I can derive that RG's act is
    a "done deed" ("shekol ma sheasa RG asuy"), with no mention that RY was
    the source of the derivation.

     The resolution of this apparent contradiction is that it was indeed
     not forgetfulness on RY's parrt, but a d'rasha on RA's part, RA's use
     of "shelimad'tani" notwithstanding.  On the din in YD 242:23, "Kol
     z'man shemazkir sh'mua b'fanav omeir lo 'kach limad'tani rabbeinu,' "
     the GRA (s.k. 59) comments that this is said "af al pi shelo l'mado
     mimenu."  The GRA references Moeid Katan 7b and Chagiga 14b, where the
     expression "limad'tani" is used, yet it is obvious from the context
     that the speaker did not learn his quote from the addressee. 
     Apparently, it was a form of respect for the talmid to act as though
     all that he knows comes from his rebbe, even when such was obviously
     not the case.

EMT

      

On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Meir Rabi <meir...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You say -  Now if RY accepted that the people would follow RG's pessaq,
> and he didn't need to worry about his own violation of YK, since it was all
> a show he could game, then why didn't he agree to go as soon as he heard
> RA#1 or RD#1? Particularly RD#1 should suffice, so why RD#2?
>
> I dont follow your argument - RY remained unconvinced until he was
> reminded by R Akiva of his own Pesak Atem Atem Atem. ONLY THEN was he
> convinced that BNY would not be desecrating YK.
>

Very simple. Note that the interpretation of R' Aqiva to which RY responded
Aqiva ni'hamtani, ni'hamtani, well, that interpretation does not occur in
the Mishna. In fact, as I argued in my previous mail, it occured after RY
left R' Dossa, having heard his two arguments.

Hence, RY was already going, alas with a heavy heart, to fulfil RG's
command. Thus, one presumes that there is a progressive difference between
the different approaches that he was presented with in the account of the
Mishna, and that he was somehow more convinced by RD #2 than RD #1, which
again was more convincing than RA #1. And yet, according to you, RY should
have picked up and gone (alas with heavy heart, as this is all before RA
#2) after RA #1 or at least after RD #1.

Note to readers who have no clue what RA #1, RD #1, RD #2 and RA #2 are,
just check my previous mail. They are the three successive argument in the
mishna, as well as R' Aqiva's argument that figures in the Gemara but not
in the Mishna.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Schnellkurs im j?dischen Grundwissen: I. Der Schabbat (Audio)
* Warum beschneiden Juden ihre Knaben ? Multimedia-Vortrag
* Beschneidung, die aktuelle Rechtslage ? Multimedia Schiur
* Was mir in Holocaust Museen fehlt
* Beschneidungslerntag ? Schlu?worte (Multimedia)
* Paneldiskussion zur Beschneidung ? Audio-Datei
* Welche B?nde gibt es zwischen Mensch und G?tt? (Multimedia)
* R?ckblick Gedenkfeier F?rstenfeldbruck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130408/357e71b4/attachment-0001.htm>

Re: RYL's comment on the Israeli who appeared at the 
hashkama minyan <He was wearing a white shirt, no tie, 
dressy jeans, Timberland type boots, no jacket, and a kipah 
which IMO was much too small.  Indeed,  it was so small that 
he needed a bobby pin to keep it on his head.>

I think you should consider that he came with his wife to 
the hashkama minyan.

I admit that my attempt l'lamed z'khut might be influenced 
by the fact that I go to shul on Shabbat to the 8-am minyan 
and not the 6-am one. I also wear a white shirt without 
jacket.    I cover the shirt with a sweater only on the 
coldest days of the year.  I live less than 80 yards from 
the shul so not enough time to feel the cold.  From after 
Pesach until Sukkot I wear sandals. I know of no halakhic 
shiur for a kipa but differ from your visitor only that my 
kipa is bigger because I'm bald. A bobby pin would have no 
hairs to attach to so I'm limited to larger size or glue, or 
usually both.

I admit though that when visiting the US I comply with the 
local custom and wear a jacket and tie.  Well, almost. On a 
very hot summer day I wore the jacket and tie for ma'ariv 
and shacharit but for mincha I couldn't take it any longer 
and showed up without them.

David 



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


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 60
**************************************

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.)