Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 85

Wed, 14 May 2014

• 1. Re: Women wearing Tefillin (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: summer halachot (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: summer halachot (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: summer halachot (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: The O Therapist and the Suicidally Depressed Gay Client? (Arie Folger)
• 6. Re: The O Therapist and the non taharas mishpacha keeping couple (Chana Luntz)
• 7. Re: The O Therapist and the non taharas mishpacha keeping, couple (David Riceman)
• 8. Musical Davening (Liron Kopinsky)
• 9. Re: Musical Davening (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Musical Davening (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: The O Therapist and the non taharas mishpacha keeping, couple (Micha Berger)
• 12. A Printing Mistake and the Mysterious Origins of Rashbi?s Yahrzeit* (Prof. Levine)
• 13. Re: The O Therapist and the non taharas mishpacha keeping, couple (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: A Printing Mistake and the Mysterious Origins of Rashbi?s Yahrzeit* (Mandel, Seth)
• 15. Re: The O Therapist and the non taharas mishpacha keeping, couple (David Riceman)
• 16. Re: A Printing Mistake and the Mysterious Origins of Rashbi?s Yahrzeit* (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: The O Therapist and the non taharas mishpacha keeping, couple (David Riceman)

On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 07:00:52PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
:> The AhS (OC 17:3) gives two other different distinctions between tzitzis
:> on the one hand and shofar, sukkah and lulav on the other...
...
:> 1- Those mitzvos are annual, and the mitzvah itself doesn't take very
:>    long, whereas tzitzis is year-round and lo na'eh lenashim.
:> 2- Tzitzis aren't a chiyuv for men either.

: Ironically these two reasons seem to contradict one another.  Given that it
: is not a chiyuv for men, since they are only obligated if they happen to
: have a four cornered garment, even if a woman took on the mitzvah she could
: only be assumed to be taking it on to the same extent that a man does,
: meaning then if she happened not to have a four cornered garment, she would
: be exempt, as he would.  Makes it much easier to justify stopping and
: limiting the level of time commitment.

Although RYME is probably talking about a woman imitating the minhag
of making a point of wearing a four cornered garment in order to wear
tzitzis: whether he means a tallis qatan or davening in a tallis.


Although Rn Chana's subsequent point:
: I would note, however, that going to shul is far worse in this regard. The
: amount of time spent by my husband in shul, compared with myself, is huge,
: and probably accounts for the difference between the amount of time that I
: find for learning during the day versus the amount of time he does.  So were
: the time argument to be a valid one, then according to this Aruch HaShulchan
: we should protest every time a woman goes to shul - except perhaps on yom
: tov, which perhaps can be grandfathered in as only a few times a year.
....

This might suggest the AhS is addressing tallis qatan in #2.

Or, it might speak to the relationship between tefillah and shul. Is the
value of going to shul specific to tefillah betzibur? (I thought not,
but I have no meqoros.) And if not, perhaps women gain as much from
being in shul when they daven as a minyan of men do, and this specific
locale issue is not about gender.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 28th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Netzach: What role does
Fax: (270) 514-1507      domination or taking control play in building brotherhood?

/n Sun, May 11, 2014 at 03:42:45PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
:> Unless needed for a medical condition, sunglasses may not be worn on
:> Shabbos outside of an Eiruv.

: Does everyone agree to this? It would seem to depend on whether people
: remove sunglasses which might depend on where you live.

May gloves be worn on Shabbos? This Shibolei haLeqet forbids, considering
it part of the gezeira against wearing jewelry -- they might be taken
off in a reshus harabim and carried 4 amos.

But the SA (301:37) permits, calling the chumerah a nice one to follow.
The MB says we are nohagim lehaqeil, because there are so few reshuyos
harabbim deOraisa.

If gloves are permitted, then why would sunglasses be assur? I could see
two possiblities:

1- RDN does indeed assur gloves, or is saying "may not" in the sense of
raui lehachmir like the SA.

2- Gloves are generally worn to keep warm. But sunglasses are more like
jewelry in that they are often worn for appearance sake.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 28th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Netzach: What role does
Fax: (270) 514-1507      domination or taking control play in building brotherhood?

> Unless needed for a medical condition, sunglasses may not be worn on Shabbos
outside of an Eiruv.

: Does everyone agree to this? It would seem to depend on whether people
: remove sunglasses which might depend on where you live.

:- Gloves are generally worn to keep warm. But sunglasses are more like
:jewelry in that they are often worn for appearance sake.

which why I said it should depend on locale. In places like Israel in the
summer with a heavy sun glare
sunglasses are more of a necessity

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140513/c25a70ac/attachment-0001.htm>

On 13/05/2014 2:09 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> 2- Gloves are generally worn to keep warm. But sunglasses are more like
> jewelry in that they are often worn for appearance sake.

There's a big difference between gloves and sunglasses.  Gloves are worn
to keep warm, and generally if when you left home it was cold enough to
require gloves, it isn't likely to get so warm on the way that you would
take them off.   But sunglasses are only required when the sun is out, and
it goes in and out all the time.  It's therefore more likely that on the
way the sun will go in, and you'll remove them as you're walking, and move
four amos before putting them back on.  Especially if they're normal sun-
glasses, not photogray, so when the sun is in they actually get in the way
of seeing things.


-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond

To my assertion that adultery is not uncommon in marriages that have
faltered, and indeed, general western society no longer considers that
adultery at all, RAM replied:

> If my views have been skewed by my admittedly sheltered life, then
> my hope is that the views of Rabbis Sternbuch and Folger were
> skewed in the other direction, by the things that a community leader
> has the misfortune to know of. And if so, then my prayer is that the
> truth is somewhere in the middle, and not quite as bad as they see it.

I am afraid that what I have seen is not so atypical, except for in the
frum and probably other very traditional societies.

However, the statistics need not be perfect. The Talmud creates a complex
equivalency of sefeiqot in the following case, where it is highly unlikely
that precise statistical measurements were ever taken:

Qidushin 73a (colloquial translation from yours truly) - Says Rava, from
the Torah, a foundling is kosher, since if the mother was married, we may
assume her husband was the father. What's left, perhaps the mother was an
arusa (where since she doesn't yet live with her arus we may not blindly
assume the child is his) or a woman whose husband was away overseas [both
cases where the child would usually be a mamzer]? Well, since there are
single women who give birth, as well as children who are left behind
because the parents couldn't feed it (and the parents hoped someone else
who has food might save the kid), so it is fifty fifty, and only the mamzer
vadai is prohibited on the Torah level.

It seems that sometimes, instead of precise statistics, we make do with
counting categories and guesstimating the odds roughly.

What Rav Moshe Sternbuch did is no different and presumably no less
legitimate.

Kol tuv,
--
mit freundlichen Gr??en,
with kind regards,
Arie Folger

visit my blog at http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
sent from my mobile device
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140513/97d610ef/attachment-0001.htm>

I wrote:

>You don't need to do the adultery just as often as violating the nida.
Once the woman commits adultery once, she is then forbidden to her husband -
so that having relations would then involve >two prohibitions, that of nidah
and that of having relations with her husband.  And while nidah can be fixed
next time by going to mikvah, this one can never be fixed, except by
divorce.  So >if by preventing marital discord one can prevent the woman
committing adultery, then you are halving the number of violations each time
they have relations (not to mention the essential >violation of the
adulterous relationship itself).

I should have added here: and if one suspects it is unlikely that a proper
get will be given on termination of the marriage, then the doubling of
violations for every act will continue into her next relationship, because
not only will she still presumably remain a nidah, but she is also assur
l'boel.  

Regards

Chana

RCL:

<<Once the woman commits adultery once, she is then forbidden to her 
husband - so that having relations would then involve two prohibitions, 
that of nidah and that of having relations with her husband.>>

I think we can complicate this a bit more.  Do I correctly understand 
RMS as having claimed that there's a hazakah that couples who squabble 
commit adultery? If we say makkin v'osrin um'misin al hahazakah, doesn't 
that mean that no squabbling couple may have relations even after 
they've made up?

David Riceman

http://www.kipa.co.il/now/56807.html

What could the halachik objection be?

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/20140513/ba635859/attachment-0001.htm>

On 13/05/2014 4:38 PM, Liron Kopinsky via Avodah wrote:
> http://www.kipa.co.il/now/56807.html
> What could the halachik objection be?

My guess is that this rov takes a broader view of the issur on having an
organ in a shul.  My understanding is that the issur was davka on organs
and not on other instruments, but perhaps he holds otherwise.


-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:37:50PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: On 13/05/2014 4:38 PM, Liron Kopinsky via Avodah wrote:
:> http://www.kipa.co.il/now/56807.html
:> What could the halachik objection be?

: My guess is that this rov takes a broader view of the issur on having an
: organ in a shul.  My understanding is that the issur was davka on organs
: and not on other instruments, but perhaps he holds otherwise.

OTOH, today, guitars and flutes are more commonly played in protestant
settings than organs. So perhaps R Mikhah haLevi is translating the
existing "gezeira" to the new reality.

("Gezaira" in quotes because I believe as a technical term, with all
the rules in Hil' Mamrim, real gezeiros can only be made by a beis din
of true musmachim.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 29th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       an act of kindness?

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 08:03:30PM -0400, R David Riceman wrote:
: I think we can complicate this a bit more.  Do I correctly
: understand RMS as having claimed that there's a hazakah that couples
: who squabble commit adultery? ...

No. Just that there is enough of a risk to matir giving them marriage
advice that would increase the number of violations of hil' middah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

 From http://tinyurl.com/3ddwkh4

The most well known explanation to the connection between Rashbi and 
Lag Ba-Omer is that Rashbi died on that day, and he was one of the 
students of R. Akiva. Assuming for a moment that this is factually 
correct, it is quite strange that we celebrate Rashbi's death. We 
don't celebrate the yarzheit of Avraham Avinu, Moshe Rabbeinu, David 
HaMelech, or any other great people with bonfires. Rather, halakha 
states the opposite - to fast on a yahrzeit, especially on those days 
that great people died. This problem is addressed by the Sho'el 
u-Meshiv (5:39) and because of this question and others, he was very 
skeptical of the celebration that takes place at Meron. R. Aryeh 
Balhuver, in his Shem Aryeh (no. 13), points out that because of the 
celebration that takes place at Meron for Rashbi, people began to be 
lenient about fasting on the yarzheit of their parents.

Another problem is that neither Chazal nor any of the Rishonim 
mention Rashbi dying on Lag Ba-Omer; and as a general rule we do not 
make any form of a Yom Tov on a day that is not mentioned in Chazal. 
This issue was addressed by the Chatam Sofer in his teshuvot (Y.D. 
233) and because of this, he too was very skeptical of the way Lag 
Ba-Omer is celebrated.

So what is the source that Rashbi died on Lag Ba-Omer? R. Yehosef 
Schwartz writes in his Tevuot Ha-Aretz (p.224) that he searched all 
over for the reason for the great simcha at Meron on Lag Ba-Omer, and 
concluded that it must be because Rashbi died on Lag Ba-Omer. R. 
Jonathan Eybeschutz, the Ba'al ha-Tanyah, Reb Zadok ha-Kohen, and the 
Arukha ha-Shulhan also say that Rashbi died on Lag Ba-Omer.

Please 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/20140514/edbf172e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 09:05:45AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: But competing risks isn't a halachic category.  Can you rephrase
: this using terms the Ramban would recognize, but without terms like
: hazakah or safeik or miut hanimtza?  If you need to use terms like
: that the halachic implications should extend to all marriages.

Three thoughts:

1- Given that
    risk = probability of loss * size of loss

I do not see any way of defining risk without invoking rov/mi'ut deleika
leqaman terminology, which is how halakhah models probability. And yes,
halakhah's measure of rov is pretty course-grained, dividing the full
range into having only 5 (or 7, if you consider mi'ut she'eino nimtza,
milsa delo sheikha, and absolute certainty to be more than one category;
and similarly for rov).

2- Maybe they do extend to all marriages. But one isn't counseling all
marriages.

3- We aren't talking about issur, or even lifnei iveir, but about
mesayei'ah. So the whole thing is about making some sin easier. In this
case, involving less of an emotional hurdle. Perhaps it's not an issue
of likelihood, despite what I wrote earlier, although it seems that a
person is more likely to do something that is easier and conversely ease
is our only way of estimating an increase probability.

In which case, the person is making it easier for them (partially
enabling) to continue flaunting taharas hamishpachah being justified
because the therapist would instead be making it easier for them to
violate eishas ish. And not because of probability, but because of
the message of acceptability implied in providing aid. (Or maybe
some third thing, my imagination is limited.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 29th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       an act of kindness?

Regardless of when he may have actually died (do we know when any of the
Tannaim died?), there is no question but that the celebrations are of
non-Jewish origin. We have written testimony that the m'qubbalim in Tzfat
used to fast and gather at his qever on his yahrzeit and learn the Zohar,
and the celebration came from Jews who had adopted Arab customs. This is
fact; but I know of no hard evidence about the date.
But given the choice between singing and dancing around a fire, and fasting and learning, which do you think people would choose?

Rabbi Seth Mandel
Sent from my iPhone

On May 14, 2014, at 7:39 AM, "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu<mailto:llev...@stevens.edu>> wrote:

From http://tinyurl.com/3ddwkh4

The most well known explanation to the connection between Rashbi and Lag
Ba-Omer is that Rashbi died on that day, and he was one of the students of
R. Akiva. Assuming for a moment that this is factually correct, it is quite
strange that we celebrate Rashbi?s death. We don?t celebrate the yarzheit
of Avraham Avinu, Moshe Rabbeinu, David HaMelech, or any other great people
with bonfires. Rather, halakha states the opposite - to fast on a yahrzeit,
especially on those days that great people died. This problem is addressed
by the Sho?el u-Meshiv (5:39) and because of this question and others, he
was very skeptical of the celebration that takes place at Meron. R. Aryeh
Balhuver, in his Shem Aryeh (no. 13), points out that because of the
celebration that takes place at Meron for Rashbi, people began to be
lenient about fasting on the yarzheit of their parents.

Another problem is that neither Chazal nor any of the Rishonim mention
Rashbi dying on Lag Ba-Omer; and as a general rule we do not make any form
of a Yom Tov on a day that is not mentioned in Chazal. This issue was
addressed by the Chatam Sofer in his teshuvot (Y.D. 233) and because of
this, he too was very skeptical of the way Lag Ba-Omer is celebrated.

So what is the source that Rashbi died on Lag Ba-Omer? R. Yehosef Schwartz
writes in his Tevuot Ha-Aretz (p.224) that he searched all over for the
reason for the great simcha at Meron on Lag Ba-Omer, and concluded that it
must be because Rashbi died on Lag Ba-Omer. R. Jonathan Eybeschutz, the
Ba?al ha-Tanyah, Reb Zadok ha-Kohen, and the Arukha ha-Shulhan also say
that Rashbi died on Lag Ba-Omer.

Please 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/20140514/e989ce2e/attachment-0001.htm>

Me:

<<Do I correctly : understand RMS as having claimed that there's a 
hazakah that couples : who squabble commit adultery?>>

RMB:

<< No. Just that there is enough of a risk to matir giving them marriage 
advice that would increase the number of violations of hil' [n]iddah.>>

But competing risks isn't a halachic category.  Can you rephrase this 
using terms the Ramban would recognize, but without terms like hazakah 
or safeik or miut hanimtza?  If you need to use terms like that the 
halachic implications should extend to all marriages.

David Riceman

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 07:38:00AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: From http://tinyurl.com/3ddwkh4
...

We discussed the typo before -- you posted the same claim two years ago:
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.c
gi?section=U#UMHELLO%20RASHBI%20DIDNT%20DIE%20ON%20LAG%20BOMER
or <http://j.mp/1sNPk4Y>.

Even with the presumed original text "yom simchas Rashbi" (with a ches
that later dropped from the middle word), it still links the day to
Rashbi and to celebrating, and so the difference isn't all that great.

And, we are still left with the question of what R' Shim'on bar Yochai's
joy on that day was about. It could still be a reference to his yahrzeit.
As Zev wrote back in 2012:
> ...         What is "yom simchas Rashbi"?  The Zohar (Idra Zuta)
> tells us that it was "the day that R Shimon sought to leave
> the world", the day on which his neshama became "united, grasped
> passionately, and bound" to Hashem.
> http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%9
> 0_%D7%96%D7%95%D7%98%D7%90

In contrast the Chida, who oviously knew this source, says Rachbi's
yahrtzeirt was not Lag BaOmer. Quoting R' Akiva Blum:
> It's in the Chid"a's sefer Maris Haayin siman 7:
> http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=24637&;pgnum=156

And in another post he adds:
> The Ben Ish Hai says in Da'at u'Tevunah (petichah rishonah) that a possible
> explanation of "yom simchat RASHBI" is that it's the day that Rabbi Akiva
> started to teach Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (thus making a direct connection
> between the two events that we celebrate on Lag LaOmer).
> http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20123&;;st=&pgnum=14

In any case, the ches would not be reason for any of this to change
lemaaseh.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 29th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       an act of kindness?

RMB:

<<2- Maybe they do extend to all marriages. But one isn't counseling all 
marriages.

  3- We aren't talking about issur, or even lifnei iveir, but about 
mesayei'ah. So the whole thing is about making some sin easier. In this 
case, involving less of an emotional hurdle. Perhaps it's not an issue 
of likelihood, despite what I wrote earlier, although it seems that a 
person is more likely to do something that is easier and conversely ease 
is our only way of estimating an increase probability.>>

Perhaps a professional therapist on the list can comment, but I would be 
surprised to learn that therapists don't have an ethical rule saying 
that, beyond certain universally accepted norms (e.g., murder is bad), 
it's inappropriate for a therapist to impose his own ethical norms on 
his clients.  So if an orthodox therapist wants to insist that his 
clients follow hilchos nidda he should restrict himself to an orthodox 
clientele, who can be presumed to agree with that norm.

RMS has a problem of diplomacy.  He doesn't want to tell this therapist 
to restrict his practice to an orthodox clientele.  He doesn't want to 
say that professional ethics trumps mesayyeia yedei ovrei aveirah (even 
if only through verbal encouragement).  He also doesn't want to give a 
clean halachic argument, since (as I pointed out) that has negative 
implications for everyone else's marriage as well.

His solution is to phrase his answer in a way that halachists will 
recognize as fake: he uses the language of competing risks precisely to 
clarify that he's not making his actual argument in this teshuva.

So I suspect that we may be over-analyzing his response.

David Riceman



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



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


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


**************************************

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.)