Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 101

Sun, 26 May 2013

• 1. Re: 50 (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Interesting Sefiras Ha-Omer Advice (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: electricity on Shabbos - R. Asher Weiss (Kenneth Miller)
• 4. Re: electricity on Shabbos - R. Asher Weiss (Kenneth Miller)
• 5. Re: electricity on Shabbos - R. Asher Weiss (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: electricity on Shabbos - R. Asher Weiss (Joe Slater)
• 7. Personal Description of RSRH (Prof. Levine)
• 8. TALKING IN SHUL (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Their Way and Non-halachic Movements Amongst Sephardim (Prof. Levine)

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 01:08:11PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
: > But I see in the [Qorban haEdah's] wording "debeshe'ar shenei shavua'
: > airi qera" his belief that
: >     debesher'ar shenei hashavua -- regardless of which of the years of
: >         the shemitah cycle yovel falls out on (other than shemittah itself)
: >     airi qera -- the pasuq says he leaves before a full 6 years
: > Even though the QhE happens to give the oft-cited case of yovel on
: > shemittah+1.

: > Kindly map your impression to the words, because I'm still missing how
: > it fits.

: I take my clue from the third line of the Qh'E on the amud...          So
: while I agree that you can read it as being a mere instance of yovel being
: one of the years preceding a shemitta, nonetheless, I find that him using
: only the case of yovel being year 1, rather than years 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6, to
: be significant, as he gives not the slightest indication in his own words
: (as opposed to paraphrasing the Talmud, which he does) ...
: So it rather seems that he is not using yovel = year 1 as an example, but
: rather as the only possible instance.

Except that he does quote the gemara immediately after the cited case,
and doesn't transvalue the words.

So the question is which is more likely:

1- That he reinterpreted the words of the gemara very far from the naive
   read without ever saying how, and even quotes them in that explanation.

Or

2- That he took the first possible example from a list, even though
   it might mislead someone who refers back to the Bavli. And then quotes
   the gemara to add "and so on for the other cases."

The first approach requires assuming he did read the Bavli as being
different than the Y-mi's plain meaning, which I don't find necessary
-- although clearly it is the more commonly accepted reading of the
Bavli. Because otherwise he has no motive to take the gemara differently
than what the words appear to say.

But even without that point, I find the 2nd more likely. That he simply
took a misleading example, rather than took A to mean B without ever
saying how to fit it to the words of A.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:54:06PM -0400, Yonatan Kaganoff wrote:
: A friend of mine (not a Rabbi, but very Jewish knowledgeable) told me
: that he tells people who missed a day of counting sefirat ha-omer that
: they should continue counting with a brachah if he is fairly certain
: that they will stop counting if they could only count without a
: brachah.
: 
: His reasoning is that without saying a brachah, these persons will
: likely stop performing the mitzvah altogether and the worst thing that
: they are doing is maybe, possibly, saying a brachah l'batalah and
: there is a long Ashkenazi tradition of being lenient on saying a
: brachah l'batalah.

Ashkenazim aren't more meikil in general. Rather, we are more willing to
say a birkhas hamitzvah when the act isn't a chiyuv. E.g. a woman making
it on a mitzvas asei shehazman gerama. Or, when we do the maaseh mitzvah
for the sake of a minhag with no qiyum mitzvah altogether, like lighting
menorah in shul.

I think your friend's sevara would still hold WRT saying berakhos on
counting the omer after an interruption. It's a maaseh mitzvah that
we're noheig to do even though we're not sure it's still a chiyuv. Can't
be worse than a berakhah on the menorah in shul. I just think your
description of it is overly loose.

That said, though, he is being choleiq with numerous acharonim. See the
MA and the MB (start of OC 489).

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
mi...@aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine

I had asked:
> I fear that I'm missing something very basic to this whole
> discussion. Are the Lamed-Tes Melachos to be reduced in
> importance to being 39 mere examples of Significant Action?

R' Micha Berger responded:
> Is that a reduction, or a translation of "melakhah"? What is
> wrong with saying the 39 melakhos are 39 kinds of significant
> action? The kinds we care about listing are those that match
> steps in building the mishkan that are identifiable enough
> to warrant multiple qorbanos if violated.

When I first read this, I thought that you were proposing this idea: That
in addition to the 39 listed melachos, which meet a certain criterion and
warrant multiple korbanos, there also exist other melachos, which are also
assur d'Oraisa (and presumably Chayavei Misa Biydei Beis Din) but do not
warrant extra korbanos if other melachos were also performed. But I find
this difficult to accept, for two distinct reasons:

1) Have we ever heard of an act referred to (in a Shabbos context) as a "melacha" without being one of the 39?

2) R"n Chana Luntz's story of R' Yochanan and R' Shimon is enlightening, but I do not find it very helpful:

> Firstly, he bases his understanding on a Yerushalmi in Shabbat
> (Perek 7 halacha 2) which states that Rabbi Yochanan and Resh
> Lakish spent three and a half years sorting out all the toldos
> of shabbas into the 39 categories. Those that they could
> determine it as belonging to a particular category, they
> categorised it in that category, those they couldn't they
> categorised it as makah bepatish.

I now suspect that RMB was not proposing a "miscellaneous" group of actions
which are melacha without being of the 39. Rather, if an action looks like
a melacha and smells like a melacha, but it's not among the other 38
melachos, then it must be an example of makkah b'patish.

And the example given is that of lancing a boil. Fine, if one wants to
label such an act as "repairing", it's no stretch of the imagination at
all. The skin had a problem, and now it is repaired. But how can we apply
that to other examples?

What has one repaired when he flushes a toilet? Or when he adds two numbers on a calculator? These are not examples of repairing an object, but of USING one.

Those two examples have a weakness though, namely that they are fairly
modern devices. That is exactly why I chose to mention two devices that are
somewhat older - the simple megaphone, and the player piano. But if we are
looking for devices which produce a (still-undefined) "significant action",
I don't see why we can't expand this to include ALL musical instruments.

It seems clear to me that musical instruments are assur on Shabbos, and
that the issur is explicitly of a d'rabanan nature, and the reason for this
issur is explicitly given that their use MAY LEAD to tikkun mana. Please
consider the logic here. If playing a musical instrument on Shabbos is as I
just described, then it cannot possibly be makkeh b'patish! The issur
d'rabanan would have been superfluous!

If so, then what does "significant action" mean? Can one suggest a way that
"significant action" would include the operation of a toilet or a
mechanical calculator, but not a bugle or violin?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2

Having reread R"n Chana Luntz's post, I think I may want to modify or retract some of what I wrote previously in this thread.

> Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish spent three and a half years
> sorting out all the toldos of shabbas into the 39 categories.
> Those that they could determine it as belonging to a
> particular category, they categorised it in that category,
> those they couldn't they categorised it as makah bepatish.
> ...
> The parallel between a doctor fixing a person, and an
> artisan fixing a kli is pretty straightforward, as both
> involve something that is "broken" - something that cannot
> so easily be said for an electronic circuit - although
> interestingly, we do in English talk about "breaking" a
> circuit, or a connection.  But that linguistic link as
> evidence of a deeper truth is not what RAW appears to be
> trying to establish here, but rather that the very
> existence of an action that can be considered chashuv, ...

I'd be very interested in hearing more of what RAW actually wrote. It is my
hope that I was putting too much focus on the idea of "signification
action". To call electric devices a form of makkeh b'patish sounds (to me)
like an interesting extension of the Chazon Ish's "binyan" argument,
because it would include battery-powered devices.

If this is indeed what he meant, then I'd retract most of my questions
about musical instruments, because I don't see any sort of construction
happening when most instruments are played. For example, a bugle undergoes
no change whatsoever, although someone could easily say that a trumpet's
valves are very much like an electric switch. On the other hand, if an
electric switch is said to be the repair of a device (and not merely the
use of it), then the legs of a folding table certainly constitute "repair".

But it seems that RCL is doubtful about that.

> [That] is not what RAW appears to be trying to establish
> here, but rather that the very existence of an action that
> can be considered chashuv, ...

I hope that this question will be answered when she reviews the second and
third of these teshuvos. Because if "important action" is his real
criterion, then I just thought of an example even better than the msical
instruments: kinyan.

From the mindset of an engineer, it is easy to establish the importance of
quantum energies and electrical circuits and whatnot. But for a halachic
mindset, it is tough to imagine an action that carries more weight than a
kinyan. Whether this object is mine or yours will have ramifications in
dozens or hundreds of halachos. But making a kinyan is often mutar on
Shabbos. Sometimes even a mitzvah. At worst d'rabanan. If "significant
action" were enough to declare it a melacha, how did kinyanim escape
Chazal's notice?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
BlackBerry&#174 10
Get the latest details on the new BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/519fc9b01957049af2cddst04vuc

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 01:16:00PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: Well I have now been sent a copy (thank you very much) of the three
: teshuvos from the Minchas Asher, so I am a bit more clued in as to what
: he says. Here is a summary of the first one (siman 30) (I haven't properly
: worked my way through the other two).

: Firstly, he bases his understanding on a Yerushalmi in Shabbat (Perek
: 7 halacha 2) which states that Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish spent
: three and a half years sorting out all the toldos of shabbas into the
: 39 categories. Those that they could determine it as belonging to a
: particular category, they categorised it in that category, those they
: couldn't they categorised it as makah bepatish.

When I was learning Y-mi Shabbos, the impression I got as well was that
the general concept of melakhah was primary, and assignment of an action
to a particular melakhah was secondary. With makeh bepatish as a catch-all.

It isn't just this one quote, but a general vague impression. Like when
with the discussion of each melakhah, it lists a bunch of tolados and then
often concludes with "and X is mb"p" (either lekhol hadei'os or it's
a machloqes).

Of course, I can't make an argument out of a general vague impression. I'm
just saying it's likely RAW is coming from a similar place, and not just
the one quote he provides.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

R' Luntz wrote:

> What puzzles me a bit about this discussion about LEDs is why RAW (and
> others) does not try and include them in the definition of eish?  Now I
> agree, LEDs do not involve heat, just the production of a photon in the
> visible light spectrum - but why could that not be considered part if not
> the essential definition of eish?
>

I think that by asking "what is eish?" we may be making a category mistake:
eish is eish; it isn't the appearance of photons or the production of CO2
or whatever; those are its attributes and not what it actually *is*. Do we
have any reason to think that Chazal would have identified, e.g.,
bioluminescence or the luminescence of minerals as eish? WOuld they *not*
have considered slow-burning coals to be eish, despite the fact that they
produce negligible amounts of visible light?

If we're going to be punctilious about chemical or physical models then we
must acknowledge that *everything* emits photons to some degree. I can
accept that an incandescent bulb "is" eish, because we have the authority
of Chazal to tell us that the eish in a blacksmith's forge isn't limited to
the coals, but extends to the glowing metal. But to go from there to every
source of visible light is a bridge too far.

Joe Slater
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130526/03ddb7c1/attachment-0001.htm>

Recently I became aware of three articles that deal with the topic of 
"The Secession From the Frankfurt Jewish Community Under Samson 
Raphael Hirsch". They appeared in the publication Historia Judaica, 
10,  2, October 1948.  (These articles may be read at 
http://tinyurl.com/npn5yd6)

The name  Israelitische Gemeinde zu Frankfurt a.M., (Gemeinde for 
short) refers to the historical Jewish communal organization in 
Frankfurt.  During the first part of the 19th century reformers took 
control of this organization and eventually hired a reform rabbi 
.  Throughout all of this there remained a core of observant Jews in 
Frankfurt.  "Further fresh activities of the reformers now spurred 
the orthodox  on to resistance; they closed their ranks and after 
long and protracted preliminaries,  they formed in 1851 the 
"Israelitische Religionsgesellschaft," and selected as their 
spiritual leader Samson Raphael Hirsch."

All Jews who resided in Frankfurt were required by secular law to be 
members of the Gemeinde and pay taxes to support it,  since it was 
the officially recognized Jewish communal organization in the 
city.  RSRH was opposed to this,  because it meant that Orthodox Jews 
were supporting reform activities.  He wanted all Orthodox Jews to 
renounce their membership in the Gemeinde,  but this was not 
legal.  In 1876, largely due to the efforts of RSRH, a law was passed 
that allowed Jews to secede from the Gemeinde. Rav Hirsch then called 
upon all Orthodox Jews in Frankfurt to secede.  This caused a huge 
split in the Orthodox community, and most of the observant Jews in 
Frankfurt did not secede, much to Rav Hirsch's disappointment.

The first article about the secession issue in Frankfurt that I 
posted is by Saemy Japhet.  He was opposed to secession as was the 
father of the author of the second article posted.  Japhet's article 
contains a description of RSRH which is given below.   Keep in mind 
that he was opposed to RSRH's call for all observant Jews to secede.

As much of what interests us centers round this great
figure, it will not be out of place to say something about the
personality and character of Samson Raphael Hirsch. Born
in Hamburg, the son of cultured parents, he was brought up
as a child of the early Mendelssohn era. Haham Bernays, who
was one of the first Jewish preachers to deliver his sermons
in an advanced German, was his teacher. Samson Raphael
Hirsch received his university training at Bonn, where incidentally
Abraham Geiger was his fellow student. Hirsch
was already in his younger years a man of the world. He
made it a point to appear always in faultless apparel, almost
stylish, according to the fashion of the period. Nothing in
his manner or figure was to be strange to the crowd. This
remained so during his whole life and I can still see him as an
octogenarian, immaculately dressed in the finest black suit
and top hat, like a born aristocrat. A striking feature was
his head, so well shaped and adorned with the most beautiful
and brilliant eyes, which kept their fiery lustre up to the last
moments of his life. I think nobody could ever forget his
countenance, animated by the magnetic glance. And whilst
his outward manner was prepossessing and attractive, his
character showed a strength and earnestness u11common for
any man, almost too earnest. He did not freely make friends
and even his friends he kept at a distance; nor was he easily
approached, his serenity and dignity warded off intimacy.
Bold and fearless he upheld his convictions. Only once did
he yield to outside pressure, when-in Oldenburg-he allowed
Kol N id re to be abolished. In later years he made no
concessions, no adjustment of views was possible and, in
questions of principle, he never accepted any compromise,
nor did he permit any of his communities to interfere with
his opinions and beliefs.

All this led to frequent clashes and we saw him sever his
relations with Geiger, his fellow student, and with Graetz, his
pupil, and of course with Frankel he waged a bitter feud.
History and literature were taught in our school-the
"Realschule der Israelitischen Religionsgesellschaft," (according
to English standards a secondary school), commonly
called "The Hirsch-Schule"; I passed through the school
(1863-1872); later I became a student of the Frankfurt
Handelsschule - according to Hirsch's views. The names of
Maimonides, Spinoza, Mendelssohn and Graetz were never
even mentioned. But in his writings Hirsch branded Graetz's
History of the Jews as "a product of detestable wantonness
and frivolous superficiality"; he spoke with contempt of the
Rabbiner-Seminar in Breslau, pitying in advance the communities
which should select pupils of Breslau as their leaders.
There was never a Beth Din in the Religionsgesellschaft. To
use a commercial term, it was to all intents and purposes a
one-man business. Rabbi Hirsch laid down the law according
to his conviction. He was opposed to any form of Jewish
nationalism as well as to Zionism and one of his versions of
the translation of  "ki mi-Zion" was "from where the Tauroh
emanates, there is my Zion." He sternly rejected the order
B'nai B'rith.

As a scholar he lived his own life. His intercourse with
other scholars was scanty. He did not need them. Feared as
an antagonist, he was a born fighter and he hit hard. Mendelssohnian
tolerance was unthinkable for him. He lived in his
study amidst his books and papers, where the air was thick
with smoke clouds, issuing from his long much-loved pipe.

Needless to say, the Religionsgesellschaft was very proud
of their rabbi. His reputation as one of the greatest living
scholars was a source of the deepest satisfaction, but it was
in the first place his eloquence that thrilled their minds. He
spoke always ~ontaneously, without any notes; all his addresses
were presented extemporaneously. He was a marvelous
orator; his noble language, the rapid flow of his speech,
the originality of his thoughts, the force of his arguments,
together with his whole personal appearance, made his sermons
irresistible and secured him a magic influence.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130526/968c1936/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5763/yisro.html


TALKING IN SHUL

One of the serious flaws in our society today is the lack of proper 
decorum in shul, especially on Shabbos and Yom Tov. While socializing 
in shul is not a new problem(1) and certainly most, if not all people 
who go to shul are aware of the prohibition against talking during 
davening, still a great deal of talking goes on anyway, either from 
force of habit or out of disregard for the Halachah. Today, when the 
power of prayer is needed more than ever, we must find new ways to 
eradicate this scourge from our midst.

Ideally, there should be no talking in shul from the beginning to the 
end of davening. This should be the long term goal of every 
congregation. There are a number of halachic reasons for this:

Shulchan Aruch rules that idle talk is forbidden in shul even when 
prayers are not being recited.(2) Idle talk includes conversation 
about one's livelihood or other essential needs.(3) Nowadays there is 
some room for leniency concerning such talk, since some Rishonim rule 
that shuls are generally built with a "precondition" allowing them to 
be used for essential matters other than davening.(4) During a 
scheduled prayer session one may not separate himself from the 
tzibbur and engage in idle talk.(5) Talking during davening causes a 
chillul Hashem, since it unfortunately lends support to the widely 
held perception that non-Jews are more careful than Jews to maintain 
proper decorum in their house of worship.(6) When one is wearing his 
Tefillin, he should refrain from idle talk.(7) During certain 
portions of davening, talking is prohibited for additional reasons as 
well. Sometimes talking is considered a hefsek, an "interruption" 
which may invalidate the portion which is being interrupted, while at 
other times talking is prohibited because the congregation must give 
its undivided attention to that portion of the service. In the 
following paragraphs we will discuss the various sections of 
davening, the degree of the prohibition against talking in each 
section, and the reasons behind the prohibition. We will follow the 
order of the davening:

(Note: During certain sections of davening, as will be noted, there 
is no specific prohibition against talking. However, the 
aforementioned reasons for prohibiting talking in general apply to 
these sections as well.)

BETWEEN BIRCHOS HA-SHACHAR and BARUCH SHEAMAR - There is no specific 
halachah which prohibits talking.

DURING KADDISH - Talking is strictly forbidden, as one must pay full 
attention so that he can answer amen, etc. properly.(8)

DURING PESUKEI D'ZIMRAH - Unless there is an emergency, it is 
forbidden to talk during this time as it would constitute an 
interruption between the blessing of Baruch Sheamar and the blessing 
of Yishtabach.(9)

BETWEEN YISHTABACH and BARCHU - It is permitted to talk for a 
pressing mitzvah need only.(10)

BETWEEN BARCHU and YOTZER OHR or Ha-MA'ARIV ARAVIM - It is strictly 
forbidden to talk.(11)

DURING BIRCHOS KERIAS SHEMA and SHEMA - It is strictly forbidden to 
talk, as it would be considered an interruption in the middle of a 
blessing, which may invalidate the blessing.(12)

BETWEEN GA'AL YISRAEL and SHEMONEH ESREI - It is strictly forbidden 
to talk, since it would interrupt the all-important connection 
between Geulah and Tefillah.(13)

DURING SHEMONEH ESREI - It is strictly forbidden to talk, as it 
constitutes an interruption in davening.(14) If one spoke 
inadvertently during one of the blessings of Shemoneh Esrei, he must 
repeat the blessing.(15)

AFTER SHEMONEH ESREI - It is forbidden to talk if it will disturb the 
concentration of others who are still davening.(16)

DURING CHAZARAS Ha-SHATZ - It is strictly forbidden to talk,(17) 
since one must pay full attention so that he can answer amen 
properly. One who talks during chazaras ha-shatz is called "a sinner 
whose sin is too great to be forgiven.(18) The poskim report that 
several shuls were destroyed on account of this sin.(19)

DURING KEDUSHAH - It is strictly forbidden to talk. Total 
concentration is mandatory.(20)

DURING NESIAS KAPAYIM - It is forbidden to talk, as complete 
attention must be paid to the kohanim.(21)

BETWEEN CHAZARAS HA SHATZ and TACHANUN - It is inappropriate to talk, 
since l'chatchilah there should be no interruption between Shemoneh 
Esrei and Tachanun.(22)

BETWEEN TACHANUN and KERIAS HA-TORAH - There is no specific 
prohibition against talking.

DURING KERIAS HA-TORAH - It is strictly forbidden to engage in either 
idle talk or divrei Torah during Kerias ha-Torah.(23) One who speaks 
at that time is called "a sinner whose sin is too great to be 
forgiven.(24) Some poskim prohibit talking as soon as the Torah 
scroll is unrolled.(25)

BETWEEN ALIYOS - There are several views: Some poskim prohibit 
talking totally,(26) others permit discussing divrei Torah only,(27) 
while others are even more lenient.(28)

DURING HAFTARAH and ITS BLESSINGS - It is forbidden to talk, as one 
must pay undivided attention.(29)

BETWEEN KERIAS HATORAH and THE END OF DAVENING - There is no specific 
prohibition against talking.

DURING HALLEL - It is forbidden to talk. Doing so constitutes an 
interruption of Hallel.(30)

KABBOLAS SHABBOS - There is no specific prohibition against talking.

DURING VAYECHULU and MAGEN AVOS - It is forbidden to talk(31).

Note: From an halachic point of view, it is important to distinguish 
between those portions of the davening where talking is prohibited 
because of hefsek (e.g. Birchos Kerias Shema and Shema, Shemoneh 
Esrei, Kedushah, Hallel), where not even a single word is permitted 
to be uttered regardless of "need," and those portions where the 
prohibition against talking is based on the requirement of paying 
attention to the davening or because of shul decorum (e.g. Kaddish, 
chazaras ha-shatz), where an exception can be made when a special 
need arises, allowing one to quietly utter a few words.(32)

The following statement, authored by Harav Shimon Schwab,(33) sums up 
the Torah viewpoint on this subject:

"For Hashem's sake - let us be quiet in the Beis Haknesses. Our 
reverent silence during the Tefillah will speak very loudly to Him 
Who holds our fate in His hands. Communicating with Hashem is our 
only recourse in this era of trial and tribulations. There is too 
much ugly noise in our world today. Let us find peace and tranquility 
while we stand before Hashem in prayer!"

FOOTNOTES:

1 R' Avraham ben Rambam reports that this problem was so widespread 
in Egypt during his father's time that he decided to eliminate 
chazaras ha-shatz altogether; See Yechaveh Da'as 5:12.

2 O.C. 151:1.

3 Mishnah Berurah 151:2.

4 Aruch ha-Shulchan 151:5.

5 Rama O.C. 68:1; 90:18. See Shulchan Aruch Harav 124:10 who writes 
that talking while the congregation is praising Hashem is a form of blasphemy.

6 Aruch ha-Shulchan 124:12.

7 Mishnah Berurah 44:3.

8 Mishnah Berurah 56:1.

9 O.C. 51:4 and Mishnah Berurah 6 and 7.

10 Mishnah Berurah 54:6.

11 O.C. 57:2; Mishnah Berurah 236:2.

12 O.C. 65:1 and 66:1 and Mishnah Berurah.

13 O.C. 66:7.

14 O.C. 104:1.

15 Mishnah Berurah 104:25.

16 O.C. 123:2.

17 It is permitted, however, for a rav to answer an halachic question 
that is posed to him during chazaras ha-shatz; Aruch ha-Shulchan 124:12.

18 O.C. 124:7.

19 Mishnah Berurah 124:27.

20 Rama O.C. 123:2; Mishnah Berurah 56:1.

21 O.C. 128:26, Be'er Heitev 46 and Mishnah Berurah 102.

22 See Mishnah Berurah 51:9 and 131:1.

23 O.C. 146:2. and Mishnah Berurah 5.

24 Beiur Halachah 146:2 (s.v. v'hanachon), who roundly condemns such people.

25 Mishnah Berurah 146:4. See, however, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 23:8 
and Aruch ha-Shulchan 146:3 who disagree.

26 O.C. 146:2; Mishnah Berurah 2 quoting Eliyahu Rabbah; Kitzur 
Shulchan Aruch 23:8.

27 Bach, as understood by Mishnah Berurah 146:6 and many poskim.

28 Machatzis ha-Shekel, Aruch ha-Shulchan, and Shulchan ha-Tahor 
maintain that the Bach permits even idle talk between aliyos. See 
also Pri Chadash who permits conversing bein gavra l'gavra. 
Obviously, they refer to the type of talk which is permitted in shul 
and on Shabbos.

29 O.C. 146:3; 284:3.

30 O.C. 422:4 and Beiur Halachah (s.v. aval).

31 O.C. 268:12; Mishnah Berurah 56:1.

32 See Salmas Chayim 38 and written responsum by Harav C. Kanievsky 
(Ishei Yisrael #206), based on Mishnah Berurah 125:9.

33 Selected Writings, page 230.


----------


Cleveland, Ohio. He is also the Magid Shiur of a daily Mishna Berurah 
class at Congregation Shomre Shabbos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130526/44005172/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from this week's Jewish Page Magazine Inbox.  It 
deals with the question of why there have never been any movements 
like reform in the Sephardic world.   Note the statements "Jacob Katz 
tells us that the doctrine of daas Torah later became cemented in the 
1870s, when the
Church developed a doctrine of papal infallibility."  and "As Rabbi 
Marc Angel writes on p. 175 of Foundations of Sephardic Spirituality: 
"Sephardic tradition eschewed extreme positions, trying to keep as 
many Jews within the fold as possible. It is no accident that 
Sephardim never broke into various religious movements, as did the 
Ashkenazim."

I think the points he makes are something to think about.  YL

The reason why there never was a need for non-halachic movements 
(Haftorah Happenings, 4-19) among the Sepharadim is quite simple: our
societies developed a horizontal approach to religious life, as 
opposed to a vertical one. Sephardic Judaism is Judaism of the sacred 
book; learning for
us entails a straight reading of the entire Torah (including the 
Tanach, which has fallen out of favor in Ashkenaz yeshivot), with an 
emphasis on bekiyut.
While our chachamim are respected and revered, the doctrine of "daas 
Torah" was never part of our experience. Tosafot, in Berachot 31b, DH Moreh
Halacha Bifenei Rabach At, give us one of the early references to a 
doctrine of "gadol hador," and
Jacob Katz tells us that the doctrine of daas Torah later became 
cemented in the 1870s, when the
Church developed a doctrine of papal infallibility. In addition, an 
authoritarian asceticism developed
among the Chasidei Ashkenaz, who were notorious for extreme forms of 
mortification of the
flesh (not unlike German Martin Luther), such as makkos 
(self-flagellation), rolling in the snow, and
other extreme physical, masochistic measures as a kaparah. This 
proclivity towards stringency also
manifests itself in halachic rulings, lending the Ashkenazic approach 
closer to that of Shammai.
In Andalus and other Sephardic environs, there was always an openness 
and a realization that
there is a religious imperative to know about God's world, and the 
riches of t he art s, literature,
science, and all areas of human knowledge. Sepharad created a society 
that was religious and
humanistic, led by the teachings of the Rambam, and others. As Rabbi 
Marc Angel writes on p.
175 of Foundations of Sephardic Spirituality: "Sephardic tradition 
eschewed extreme positions,
trying to keep as many Jews within the fold as possible. It is no 
accident that Sephardim never
broke into various religious movements, as did the Ashkenazim."

The religiously analphabetic world of Ashkenaz, as seen today in 
Lakewood, Bnei Brak, and
Meah Shearim, is one type of extremism which led to the extremism of 
the haskalah, whereas in
the Sephardic world, the ideals of Torah, maddah, Jewish unity, 
intellectual openness, peaceful,
positive relations with all people, and a pleasant, lenient, halachic 
approach led to a religious
life that was open, tolerant, humane, intellectually vigorous, and 
much-beloved. Scholars like
Chacham Uziel, Chacham Yosef Faur, Rabbi Angel, Yisrael Moshe Hazan, 
Eliyahu Benamozegh,
Chacham Haim David Ha Levy, and others best represent this worldview. 
Instead of minimalizing
and rejecting, we seek to accommodate and make sense of the world, 
and how modernity can
magnify our lives while staying planted in our principles. This is 
the key to our religious vigor.
Loving truth, taking a Hillel approach, and being receptive to all is 
the key to Sephardic life.

Daniel Solomon Sayani
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130526/9364497a/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 101
***************************************

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