Volume 33: Number 69
Wed, 29 Apr 2015
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:33:38 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] free will
On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 1:38pm IDT, R Eli Turkel wrote:
: We have discussed many times the opinion of Rav Dessler that a person
: doesn't always have free will.
: I recently saw a halachic discussion that may have some connection.
: On ketubot 51 the gemara discusses a case of a married woman who was raped
: but at the end was willing...
: One possibility of explaining Rava is that she is overwhelmed by her
: "yetzer" and so is still considered ["anusah"]...
While RET's suggested example is consistent REED's concept of nequdas
habechirah, the way RET phrased REED's position kept this email on my
to-do list for the last 3 weeks.
REED's point is one that's pretty consistent with first-hand experience
of making choices. We do not feel in control of our subconscious
decisions. All the opportunities we filter out before we even are aware
of thinking about it.
He then says that the decisions that rise to the level of consciousness,
and thus we have some control over, are ones that generate internal
conflict. The "battlefront" in his metaphor, where the yh"t and yh"r
are balanced.
But once you accept the notion of non-conscious thought, REED's conclusion
is unavoidable.
And a person does always have free will, he just isn't aware of every
choice he makes to know to exercise it.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony?
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:41:10 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] tefillat haderech
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 04:29:11PM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
: The world has changed a lot since the time of chazal especially related to
: travel...
:
: 1. Most travel is no longer considered unsafe. When I get in my car every
: morning to drive to work I don't think twice about it
: 2. The distinction between in the city and out of the city is no longer
: true...
: Recently, I heard a short shiur on tefilas haderech and was happy to hear
: that RSZA seems to say a very similar idea to RYBS.
In contrast, the qorban todah and birkhas hagomel depend not only on
surviving a dangerous situation but also on reliving one of the four
sorts of yeshu'os tehillim ascribes to yetzi'as Mitzrayim: crossing a
desert, the sea, bring freed from jail or recovering from illness.
So, if we deem flying over the Great Lakes or the Mediterranean (to pick
shorter flights over mayim she'ein lahem sof) to be too safe to warrant
tefillas haderekh, would one end up in a situation that calls for no
tefillas haderekh beforehand, but benching gomel afterward?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony?
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:45:37 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] tefillat haderech
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:12am EDT, RnTK asked:
: But to veer back into Avodah territory -- would it have been appropriate to
: say Tefillas Haderech at that time? With shem umalchus? (I assume you
: can always say it without shem umalchus.)
Tefilas haDerekh is never said besheim umalkhus. Sheim, yes, but not
malkhus:
"Barukh atah H', shomeia tefillah."
No mention of "E-lokeinu Melekh ha'olam".
Also, when speaking about berakhah vs tefillah, Tefillas haDerekh refers
to itself as a tefillah. And notice also the chasimah is about hearing
the baqashah, not about the shemirah we're requesting itself.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony?
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:58:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Eilu v'eilu
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 02:30:15AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: But then, as I was reviewing this post, my mind turned to the Tanur
: Shel Achnai. R' Eliezer had a minority view, and R' Yehoshua was in
: the majority. I've got to believe that both views were firmly grounded;
: this machlokes was surely just as L'Shem Shamayim as any between Hillel
: and Shammai. I'd *like* to say that Klapei Shmaya, both views were Truth.
And if not, how would we justify following the majority over Divinely
revealed truth?
We discussed bas qol, and why we follow the bas qol that says "vehalakhah
kebeis Hillel" despite the anur shel achnai story. I listed the opinions
in the Encyc Talmudit here
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/legislative-authority-of-bas-qol>
It's not 100% accepted that the bas qol was really endorsing R' Eliezer's
opinion in this particular machloqes, rather than defending his shitah
in general -- "halakhah kemoso bekhol maqom", or that it was a test.
Both suggested by R' Nissim gaon. Similarly one of the answers in Tosafos
is that it was about R' Eliezer's kavod, and not a Divine statement to be
taken literally about din. All three would imply that we would follow a
bas qol over halachic process, and so they had to explain how the tanur
story wasn't an example. Thus implying that what we are searching for
is the truth rather than legal authority.
RNG's position on the tanur shel achanai story supports RMHalbertal's
theory that in the geonic era, the Retrieval theory of halakhah dominated.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony?
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:12:00 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] brochos from the amud (was: tefillat haderech)
On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 10:43:47PM -0400, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote:
: Slight change of topic: I'm still trying to wrap my head around the
: idea that we don't seem to have a chashash of a brocha l'vatalah. I
: mean, you have a sh'tz up there, saying a brocho out loud -- and
: he's intentionally trying to be motzi _some_ others...
But only those who had in mind to be yotzei.
: Shomea k'oneh
: doesn't apply at all? What if you are in the shul and you're not
: thinking about the issue of being yotzie, you're just thinking about
: which day it is, and/or you simply have stam kavanah. No chashash
: for an issur d'oraissa?
RYBS says in the context of the berakhah on Hallel that because mitzvos
einum tzerikhos kavanah, if you have no kavanah one way or the other,
you would be yotzei. To avoid being yotzei would require having explicit
kavanah not to be yotzei.
He then continues that the idea of having intent not to want to do a
mitzvah bothers him, and so RYBS said he says the berakhah on Hallel
along with the chazan. (Which is what my father does, and what I grew
up with.)
I assume the same would be true here. (Although I don't recall what
my father does, I say the berakhah along with the chazan.)
I would have thought that interrupting with "barukh Hu uvarukh shemo"
should also work. Recall that R Chaim was very against answering BHUBS
to chazaras hashatz because one is being yotzei tefillat hatzibur.
(Above and beyond one's own chiyuv of tefillah.)
While listing my hunches, I believe that intent to say it yourself
qualified as kavanah not to be yotzeir. So the default is kavanah not
to be yotzei, not an absense of kavanah one way or the other.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony?
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:44:53 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Legacy of RSRH, Zt'L
At 12:24 PM 4/28/2015, R. Ben Waxman wrote:
>Meaning - was the demand that the religious not work with the
>secular the issue or was that a cover story used to mask people's
>opposition to Zionism?
This was an issue, and there was also opposition to Zionism. The
opposition to Zionism was not masked at all.
Please read
http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zion_or_zionism.pdf to see
what Zionism really is according to Rav Schwab, ZT"L and others who
think like him.
>Or in this case, is the demand that the creation
>of the state be a Kiddush HaShem in the eyes of all rabbanim a real
>demand or is it simply a cover?
I have never heard of "the demand that the creation
of the state be a Kiddush HaShem in the eyes of all rabbanim " Who
demanded this?
> If the Breuer community want the state
>to reflect certain values, than please, make it happen.
And how do you propose that they do this?
I asked you in an earlier email what the Orthodox Jews in EY and you
in particular are doing to make this happen, and I received no response.
> If they don't
>want to make it happen or aren't willing, than the demand is (at best)
>an exercise in dissimulation.
Do you really believe that the Breuer's community at the time when
Rav Breuer and Rav Schwab has the wherewithal to make the State
reflect certain values? Even those living in EY at this time could
not do this.
There was (and still is) a large non-religious contingent of Jews
living in EY. Do you really think that anyone can "make" them change
their views or their behavior?
YL
YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150428/5f4d922b/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: via Avodah
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:32:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Eretz Yisrael vs Medinat Yisrael [was: The
R. Ben Waxman wrote:
>Therefore the creation of the State is, in of itself, a Kiddush Hashem.
>Rav Soloveitch tz"l wrote about this point in Kol Dodi Dofek and in his
>drashot for the Kinot, as did Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook tz"l.
RYL wrote:
>> We all know that there were great Torah scholars who disagreed with
>> the assertion that " the creation of the State is, in of itself, a
>> Kiddush Hashem."
>>>>>
I will have to re-read Kol Dodi Dofek because I don't remember such a
forthright quote -- "The creation of the State is, in of itself, a Kiddush
Hashem." But in any case it isn't exactly an either-or question.
The Medinah -- the secular socialist Russian government of Israel -- is
hardly a kiddush Hashem. Indeed it arouses waves of hatred from the goyim
all over the world, on a daily basis.
RBW also wrote:
>>....The first is from Yoma 86:A, Rashi, B'Amor Lehem: "Evil comes to
chassidim and chachamim because "They desecrated My Holy name." How did they
desecrate (God's name)? In those places to where they were exiled, the
non-Jews say "These are the people of God" and He can't redeem them. Conclusion:
God's name has been desecrated." End quote.<<
The establishment of a government that is hated and vilified by the whole
world is not, it would seem, a kiddush Hashem. Plus the fact that the
country is under constant military threat and cannot, apparently, provide
security to its inhabitants, also would not seem to be a kiddush Hashem. But I
think these facts -- the constant physical attacks, the world-wide moral
opprobrium -- are the cosmic result of the fact that the Medinah is
determinedly secular and consciously rejects Torah as a guiding principle.
HOWEVER, on the other side, RBW's Rashi quote does have a bearing on the
current situation in Eretz Yisrael.
There is no denying that the flourishing of Eretz Yisrael, after two
thousand years of desolation, is miraculous. The continued existence of the
country, despite the constant waves of physical and diplomatic attacks, is
also miraculous. And the fact that all Jews can go and live in Eretz Yisrael,
and that millions actually do live there, is also a huge miracle.
I said there is no denying the miraculous aspects and yet I am aware that
the Satmar Rebbe did deny it. He admitted that there was a supernatural
aspect to Israel's recent history but ascribed the miracles to the Satan,
blinding our eyes. He never joined Agudas Yisrael, the world-wide umbrella
organization for all Orthodox Jews, because he was on one side and all the
other gedolim in the world were on the other side. All the others rejected
the ideology of secular Zionism while gratefully acknowledging chasdei
Hashem in allowing the Land to be built up, allowing the Torah communities to
grow and flourish, allowing millions of Jews to live in our ancient homeland.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe also never joined the Agudah -- I refer not to the
Israeli political party but to the world-wide umbrella organization. He had
other reasons, perhaps for another time. I think he wanted Chabad to be
THE world-wide organization, he did not want it to be one of many competing
Orthodox groups and derachim. But he agreed with the basic ideology of the
Agudah vis-a-vis the state of Israel -- the nuanced view of ohr vechoshech.
And so did the Yekkes, very much so! In fact they were instrumental in
founding and guiding the Agudah, for decades! Their attitude towards Israel
after the founding of the Medinah and the beginning of kibbutz galuyos was
very much the same as the whole rest of the Agudah -- grateful
acknowledgment of the positive, hakaras hatov to the Ribono Shel Olam, opposition to
the negative, working to improve the moral status of Eretz Yisrael, e.g.,
when it came to forced autopsies (B'H the charedim won that bitterly fought
battle), giyus banos and other issues. But the Yekkes in Israel do vote, do
participate in running the country, do daven at the kosel (unlike the
Satmar and Neturei Karta), do thank Hashem for protecting Eretz Yisrael and
daven for continued Divine protection.
RYL considers himself the premier acolyte of RSRH but he and I have some
fundamental disagreements about what the Hirschian legacy really is.
--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150428/68ee2093/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Ben Waxman
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 20:59:46 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Legacy of RSRH, Zt'L
Regarding the second question, yes I did. Please see the previous emails.
Regarding the first, all I can say is that it won't be done from New York.
Regarding the other points, I addressed them so I won't repeat myself
this round.
Ben
On 4/28/2015 6:44 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> And how do you propose that they do this?
>
> I asked you in an earlier email what the Orthodox Jews in EY and you
> in particular are doing to make this happen, and I received no response.
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: via Avodah
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:59:25 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] RYBS's Talk on Hafkaas Kiddushin, Talmud Torah
From: Chana Luntz via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
>> As I have written before, what I find intensely frustrating about this
is
that RYBS's invocation of tan du appears to itself involve a form of
tampering with the chazakos and by implication the denial of the perfection
and truthfulness of chachmei chazal that is then claimed to be kefira.
The gemora in discussing tan du is very clear - both in Yevamos 118b and
Kesuvos 75a: a woman in a tan du marriage commits adultery - "kulan
mezanos"! - THAT is the chazaka from Chazal regarding the nature of women.
[snip]
But you can't get away from the fact that Chazal set this up as a chazaka.
And if you take these chazakos in the way that RYBS says to do, then there
are inevitable conclusions: A Beis Din faced with what can now clearly be
seen as a tan du marriage HAS to assume adultery as a consequence - that
being the chazaka.
[snip] Surely it is obligatory on any Rabbi who agrees to be
mesader kiddushin and on any shadchanim and eidim to investigate very
carefully that this marriage is not of the tan du nature?
[snip] But if it is an inevitable chazaka that a woman in a tan du
marriage will
commit adultery, then there is only one safek in relation to a serious
issur
d'orisa - in which case must it not be the responsibility of all those who
enable such a marriage to occur to make sure that it is not a tan du
marriage and they are not enabling such adultery to take place?
>>>>>
There is brilliant yet convoluted logic behind this post. I hesitate to
tangle with someone like R'n CL who is so erudite, yet I truly believe she
has misunderstood this Gemara. Yes, a woman in a loveless marriage is much
more tempted to commit adultery, given the right set of circumstances, but
it is certainly not inevitable. Nor is it correct to deduce that a rav must
make sure, before he marries a couple, that the woman is not entering a
loveless marriage! He doesn't have to creep into her heart and mind before
conducting the wedding, doesn't have to fathom the depths of her motives in
marrying this man. There are so many motives, so many emotions, how could
you ever fathom them all?
I think "kulan mezanos" refers to all women, and it means all women can
be seduced, though obviously it will be easier to seduce a woman who does
not love her husband. All women potentially can be seduced. IIRC Beruria the
wife of R' Meir -- and you can't claim that was a "tan duu marriage"! --
thought she was an exception to this rule about human nature, or feminine
nature. And found out she was wrong! Even she, a brilliant and pious woman
married to a great man, could be seduced.
Without the Gemara most of us would assume that men are more likely to be
unfaithful than women, and I do think that is true. I don't know how to
square what we see before us -- that men cheat more than women do -- with what
the Gemara says. In any case in Torah homes fidelity between husbands
and wives is the norm, Baruch Hashem. All those fences -- laws of yichud,
negiah, tznius and so on -- really do protect us.
--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150428/8d497a4c/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Chana Luntz
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 23:58:31 +0100
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Of Gebrokts and Kitniyos
Sorry, been away, and am therefore very behind in Avodah
On 04/03/2015 06:57 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
>> He also paskens (for EY) that one can cook kitniyot on the 7th day of
>> Pesach for use on the shabbat right afterwards (ef this year).
And RZS replied:
>Yes, I'm surprised that anyone disagrees. It seems so obviously correct.
>I know that many people don't do so, and believe it to be forbidden,
>but I have never yet heard an argument for why it should be so.
Well the arguments to prohibit can be found in Rav Poelim chelek 3 Orech
Chaim siman 30 - he brings two: one based on the prohibition of a person
who is fasting on yom tov to cook for others - as per the Rema in Shulchan
Aruch Orech Chaim siman 527 si'if 20 as explained by the Magen Avraham there
and an additional reason added by the Magen Avraham there in si'if katan 22.
The Ben Ish Chai in Rav Poelim was discussing whether a person whose custom
(in Bagdad) was not to eat rice on Pesach could cook rice for those who do.
He rejected the first rationale provided by the Magen Avraham) as being
applicable to this case, but accepted the second reason as applicable
(although he also cites a number of achronim who accept the first reason as
a reason to prohibit)- and therefore held that those who had the custom of
treating rice as assur on pesach could not cook rice for those who had the
custom of eating rice on yom tov of Pesach for so long as they had this
custom of treating rice as assur (although he held that those who had this
custom not to eat rice in Bagdad could do hatarat nedarim and be able to
eat, and hence cook, rice on pesach so as to solve the problem).
>> This is because some sefardi could come over for a visit and so the
>> kitniyot are not mukza .
>The main issue would surely not be muktzeh, but cooking on yomtov.
>But the answer is the same: the hypothetical horde of hungry guests who
>might descend on one ten minutes before sunset on Friday, and for whom
>one is, in principle, cooking, might very well be sefardim.
Yes, but according to the position of the Rav Poelim, Askenazim can never,
when cooking for Sephardim on pesach, cook them dishes that they, the
Ashkenazim, cannot eat, hence hoeil does not apply. The same ought
presumably to apply to gebrochts according to the Ben Ish Chai - if you
can't eat it on shvii shel pesach, you can't cook it for others, including
hungry guests, and so cannot effectively cook it for shabbas based on hoeil,
your shabbas food would have to consist of something else you could eat on
shvii shel pesach.
>Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
Regards
Chana
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Toby Katz
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:03:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] tefillat haderech
In a message dated 4/28/2015 12:45:47 P.M. EDT, mi...@aishdas.org writes:
> Tefilas haDerekh is never said besheim umalkhus.
You are correct, I should have caught that myself.
> Also, when speaking about berakhah vs tefillah, Tefillas haDerekh
> refers to itself as a tefillah. And notice also the chasimah is about
> hearing the baqashah, not about the shemirah we're requesting itself.
zsh:1: command not found: Fmt
--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 14:34:20 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] tefillat haderech
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 02:03:50PM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: >> Also, when speaking about berakhah vs tefillah, Tefillas haDerekh refers
: to itself as a tefillah. And notice also the chasimah is about hearing
: the baqashah, not about the shemirah we're requesting itself.<<
:
: That doesn't answer the question of whether it is appropriate to recite
: Tefillas HaDerech during a blinding rainstorm on the highway in your own city,
: which was my question.
It doesn't fully answer your question, but it does point a bit toward
saying it.
After all, it turns out that the only berakhah is about Hashem hearing
baqashos. The body of the tefillah is only a formalized equivalent to
saying "Please G-d, just get me home safe, healthy and in one piece!" or
some other spontaneous cry for help.
So, if you're scared on the road, tefillah is appropriate.
Why would thanking G-d for listening to such tefillos depend on rules
about travel?
Add to that the fact that it's only half a berakhah, which indicates
that it's shevach (like Shomeia Tefillah in Shemoneh Esrei), as another
small indicator in favor of saying it.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony?
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 15:58:11 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] RYBS's Talk on Hafkaas Kiddushin, Talmud Torah
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 12:05:17PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
[RAM:]
: > At any rate, one can agree or disagree about
: > whether this assertion is true, and even among those who agree with
: > it, there might be discussion of exactly which chazakos are unchanging
: > and which are variable. Still, his point is that there are indeed some
: > UNchanging aspects.
: I would add an observation that individual exceptions may exist
: empirically but are ignored halachically
This is the classic case of affirming a chazaqah (or rov) when there
is ika rei'usa. No?
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:58:34PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:
: The gemora in discussing tan du is very clear - both in Yevamos 118b and
: Kesuvos 75a: a woman in a tan du marriage commits adultery - "kulan
: mezanos"! - THAT is the chazaka from Chazal regarding the nature of women.
:
: Now this could mean: (a) the sort of woman who is prepared to enter a tan
: du marriage is prepared to and will commit adultery; or
: (b) all women will take a tan du marriage
: (RYBS), but if they find themselves in a tan du marriage - the existential
: loneliness that RYBS identifies as being the particular province of women
: will also, according to Chazal, inevitably drive them to adultery;
: But you can't get away from the fact that Chazal set this up as a chazaka.
As the gemara was taught to me, what they set up as a chazaqah was
pretty much as RYBS describes it. Women feel the loneliness of singlehood
more.
The flow of the sugya in the two gemaras are quite similar, from the
point where Reish Laqish is quoted staying "tav lemeisiv" onward. RL,
illustrated with meshalim by Abayei, R' Papa, and R' Ashi, followed by
a tana saying that they all are mezanos and then blame their husbands.
So, it would seem that tav lemeisiv is about a desire to be married.
This has nothing to do with romance or eros, since we are told that a
woman who is just married so s not to be like a widow (milemeisiv
armelu) do tend to end up cheating.
But tav lemeisiv isn't about the affairs, it's about (Yevamos) why
hamezakeh gett le'ishto in the middle is not valid. Because it's not
a pure zekhus for her, you cannot say zakhin le'adam shelo befanav
(or befanehah, as the case may be). There is nothing about "being driven
to" adultery by the loneliness, but by having tav lemeisiv alone
satisfied by her marriage. Perhaps the reverse of your formulation.
(I think the idea that tav lemeisiv means women are more likely
to be sexually lonely would be really hard to support, even in a
culture where husbands, not wives, have a chiyuv onah.)
Or (Kesuvos) it is used (in a complex case I'm too lazy to spell out)
why a man might wish not to be married, lest he later be prohibited to
her relatives, but in the flipside case, we do not assume the same of
the woman.
The bit about mezanos vetolos beba'aleihen is not the basis for any
halakhos. I have no reason to believe it's a chazaqah.
Tangentially...
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 07:27:43PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: Another challenge is how to deal with recent "Chachmei Hamesorah"
: who don't seem to meet the perfection definition.
I have two suggestions that work for me:
1- Make a list of current chakhmei hamesorah that don't pose such a
challenge for you. Once you start, you'll likely find it's a longwer
list than you had thought.
Focus on them, and ignore the rest, no matter how popular as gedolim
they may be.
2- Separate the current rabbinate from one's own ties to the mesorah
with a project like <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/my-mesorah>
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 24th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Tifferes sheb'Netzach: When does domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control result in balance and harmony?
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Ben Waxman
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 23:01:17 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] Not saying Tachanun (was Yom Haatzmaut)
Putting the question of Hallel aside, I don't understand the line
below. I looked through the Beit Yosef OH 131 where he discusses the
days on which Tachanun isn't said. The BY does not list all the days
that we skip (like Purim Qatan or Pesach Sheni). These came later.
So when did this idea (that we can't change when Tachanun is said or not
said) start?
Ben
On 4/28/2015 12:31 PM, Prof. Levine via Areivim wrote:
> Shemone Esrei is followed
> by Chazaras Hashatz, which is followed by Tachanun, and then followed
> by Ashrei and U'va' Letzion--and we do not have the right or
> privilege of changing that, he opined.
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: elazar teitz
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:28:47 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Making a Berakhah when Lighting for Shabbos
The statement was made that "Lighting two candles is a recent frumkeit,
or yhiruth, that started among German Jews and is less than 900 years
old.."
Isn't it also yohara to stand in judgment of a minhag mentioned in
the Tur and Shulchan Aruch and observed virtually without exception
by klal Yisraeil?
EMT
Go to top.
Message: 16
From: Zev Sero
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:50:37 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Eretz Yisrael vs Medinat Yisrael [was: The
On 04/28/2015 01:32 PM, via Avodah wrote:
> The Lubavitcher Rebbe also never joined the Agudah -- I refer not to
> the Israeli political party but to the world-wide umbrella
> organization. He had other reasons, perhaps for another time. I
> think he wanted Chabad to be THE world-wide organization, he did not
> want it to be one of many competing Orthodox groups and derachim.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe at the time the Agudah was founded was the Rashab,
who in matters of askonus generally took his lead from R Chaim Brisker.
Lubavitch was a member of the Agudah's precursor, Machzikei Hadas, but
when MH merged with the Yekkes to form the Agudah, R Chaim put 18
conditions on his participation, and since they weren't satisfied both
Brisk and Lubavitch stayed out.
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams
Go to top.
Message: 17
From: H Lampel
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:22:54 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Peshat and Drash (Was: Re: Meshech Chochmah on
On 4/28/2015 12:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> I thought it was well accepted that the Rambam's position in HLMS
> is inconsistent, that he mentions numberous machloqesin in dinim
> he himself labeled HLMS.... Chavor Ya'ir teshuvah 192...examples are numerous.
>
> Possible resolutions:
>
> - No machloqesin in the essence of the matter, but there can be in
> details. (the CY's conclusion.)
I don't think that is the Chavos Yair's conclusion. He leaves the matter
bewildered, as Rambam appears incomprehensible and self-contradictory.
> - Im halakhah hi neqabel -- no machloqesin in something both sides agree
> are HLMS.
With the modification of the word "against" in place of the word
''in,'' this is my conclusion, and that of the Maharatz Chayos. The
Rambam is addressing the Karaite argument that even Chazal did not
really consider the laws they called "payrushim mekuballim" and HLMS
(the latter being payrushim mekuballim that lack indications planted in
the Torah) to have literally come from Moshe Rabbeynu. That's why, the
Karaites argued, Chazal felt free to dispute them. The Rambam explains
that Chazal never disputed laws that made it to them from Sinai. The
disputes are over issues ''branching out'' from them. Thus, '' There is
no machlokess against any payrush that is known to have come from Sinai.''
This understanding fits very well in the Rambam's words, in the context
of which he was talking and the issues he confronted; and eliminates
what would certainly be a mess of the self-contradictions and open
contradictions from the Talmud that the CY lists.
Another concern raised by the CY is the fact that the Rambam seems
inconsistent between the Mishneh Torah and his list in the hakdama to
his Mishneh commentary in that some laws he labels as HLMS in one work
he does not in other.
Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150428/71a5f300/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 18
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:28:17 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] The Renewal Role of Sarah Schenirer
From http://tinyurl.com/njwrn2g
There was a major difference, however, between the Bais Yaacov of
Williamsburg and the Bais Yaacov of Poland in pre-war Europe. The
Bais Yaacov movement in Poland emphasized the universal Torah
teachings of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, while the Bais Yaacov of
Williamsburg did not give Rabbi Hirsch's teachings the same emphasis.
Why were Rabbi Hirsch's teachings regarding the Torah's universal
vision no longer the main focus? Most of the teachers and students at
the American Bais Yaakov were Holocaust survivors who felt a need to
turn inward after experiencing the hatred of the Gentiles around them
and the horrors of the Holocaust. They knew that most of the
"humanistic" intellectuals and artists of Germany actively supported
the brutal persecution of the Jewish people. They also knew that most
of the "enlightened" countries closed their doors to Jews who were
trying to escape the Holocaust. In addition, they knew that most of
the Christian religious leaders of Europe did not protest the
organized murder of millions of Jewish men, women, and children;
moreover, many Christians in the countries occupied by the Germans
actively assisted the Germans in rounding up the Jews for the death
camps. In fact, a number of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust who
returned to Poland after the war were murdered in Polish pogroms! It
is understandable that these survivors felt the need to first heal
themselves before worrying about the world which had abandoned their
suffering people.
In addition, these survivors did not have the strong attraction to
secular western culture which an earlier generation of Bais Yaakov
students had once experienced, and their feelings are expressed in
the following memoir of Dr. Judith Grunfeld:
"Almost seventy years have passed since, and we have today most
unfortunately an easy enough means of demonstrating that all cultures
which we then venerated have revealed themselves to be nothing but a
flimsy veneer covering over diabolical inhumanity. European
humanitarian ideas so prevalent then, so much on the tip of
everyone's tongue, preached by leading university representatives,
have been proven utterly hollow. For they did not succeed in
preventing, and indeed could be said to be frequently instrumental in
strirring up the raging, terrible fire of man's inhumanity to man."
("Rebbitzen Grunfeld" by Miriam Dansky, p. 72)
Nevertheless, our sages teach that Torah - the Divine wisdom - is the
blueprint of creation, and that the Creator looked into the Torah
when He created the world (Genesis Rabbah 1:1). If our Creator looked
into the Torah and created the world, then when we look into the
Torah we can rediscover this world. In addition, the Torah reveals
that we have the potential to become holy vessels with the spiritual
power to transform and elevate the world; thus, no matter how much we
turn inward, the study of Torah reminds us that we must eventually
turn outward. This may be one of the reasons why a growing number of
Torah-committed Jews in our generation are rediscovering the writings
of Rabbi Hirsch, as a major theme of his teachings is the universal
goal of the Torah path.
The Bais Yaacov High School of Baltimore, under the leadership of its
principal, Rabbi Binyamin Steinberg, gave renewed emphasis to the
universal vision of the Torah. Rabbi Steinberg himself was a
Holocaust survivor, and in one of his talks to his students about
respect for other peoples, he reminded them of the Compassionate
One's promise to Abraham that "through you all the families of the
earth will be blessed" (Genesis 12:3). The following is an excerpt
from his talk:
"All the families of the earth," he declared. 'Who cares about all
the families of the earth?' you ask. Nevertheless, that's what the
Torah says...The people of Israel will be a blessing for all the
families of the earth. That means the Albanians, the Greeks, the
Chinese, the Indonesians, the African Americans - all the families of
the earth. That's what it says in my Torah! " (A Matter of Principal
- a biography of Rabbi Binyamin Steinberg by Hanoch Teller).
Before we can become a blessing to others, however, we first need to
turn inward in order to develop our unique strengths. As Sarah
Schneirer realized, we first have to renew ourselves before we can
renew the world. As the Prophet Isaiah proclaimed to our people:
"O House of Jacob: Come, let us walk by the light of Hashem! " (Isaiah 2:5)
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/20150428/cd451684/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 19
From: Chana Luntz
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 22:59:29 +0100
Subject: Re: [Avodah] RYBS's Talk on Hafkaas Kiddushin, Talmud Torah
RMB writes:
>As the gemara was taught to me, what they set up as a chazaqah was
>pretty much as RYBS describes it. Women feel the loneliness of singlehood
>more.
>The flow of the sugya in the two gemaras are quite similar, from the
>point where Reish Laqish is quoted staying "tav lemeisiv" onward. RL,
>illustrated with meshalim by Abayei, R' Papa, and R' Ashi, followed by
>a tana saying that they all are mezanos and then blame their husbands.
>So, it would seem that tav lemeisiv is about a desire to be married.
>This has nothing to do with romance or eros, since we are told that a
>woman who is just married so s not to be like a widow (milemeisiv
>armelu) do tend to end up cheating.
>But tav lemeisiv isn't about the affairs,
I agree that tav lemeisiv is not brought initially to refer to the issue of
affairs, but rather indeed about a desire to be married which is then
brought to make a halachic point within another context (eg maezakeh get
l'eishto) - but once the gemora is discussing tav lemeisiv marriages - it
then takes the time out, twice, to explain what these marriages mean. And
it explains, after going through the flow of Abaye etc, that these marriages
mean inevitable adultery. Ie according the gemora a tav l'meisiv marriage =
adultery. Now, that means, the more tav l'meisiv marriages there are, the
more adultery there is. So the more you stress that the world is full of
tav l'meisiv marriages, the more you are saying that the world is full of
Bnos Yisrael committing adultery. That tav l'meisiv marriage results in
adultery is clearly part and parcel of the definition of what a tav l'meisiv
marriage is - one where a woman will prefer to be married than to be alone.
And it is not a disputed statement, it is a concluding statement rounding up
the discussion of what a tav l'meisiv marriage is.
In order to break the equation, you have to say that Chazal didn't really
mean what they said, or that they were talking about their time and place,
but women today are different - but that means denying the truthfulness and
accuracy of Chazal's statements (or understanding them differently) in
exactly the way that RYBS objects to as kefira. You can't say that a woman
prefers to be married than to be alone is a universal truth because it was
stated by Chazal, and simultaneously that women in tav lemeisiv marriages
commit adultery is not a universal truth, as they are bound up in the same
discussion and you are picking and choosing your Chazalic statements - this
one I like, this one I don't, and not just any statement, but the concluding
statement rounding up the discussion defining the concept.
....
>The bit about mezanos vetolos beba'aleihen is not the basis for any
>halakhos. I have no reason to believe it's a chazaqah.
So why did Chazal say it? For the fun of casting aspersions on Bnos
Yisrael? Twice? In the context of a halachic discussion?
If this was any other discussion, would anybody dream of suggesting that
when Chazal said that something inevitably happened in the context of a
halachic discussion they were not, at the very least, postulating a chazaka
(albeit perhaps a rebuttable one) and possibly something even stronger? One
might say - well nature has changed (eg kol treifos), or one might say - we
have to treat something as halachically following Chazal's statement, even
if we know or suspect the metzius is different (hence my line about a Beis
Din being required to treat a tav l'meisiv marriage as one where adultery
has been committed, and those enabling such a marriage being prohibited from
so doing based on lifnei iver). That is the way we generally treat Chazalic
statements of this nature. In this case, of course, we have another option,
if tav l'meisiv marriages themselves do not occur very often, then we do not
necessarily have to worry about, as common, the adultery which is part and
parcel of their definition. But if they are in fact common and inevitable
where the husband is not as a matter of fact suitable for the wife, then I
cannot see how you can claim that this is not a significant societal and
halachic concern.
Regards
Chana
Go to top.
Message: 20
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:14:18 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] RYBS's Talk on Hafkaas Kiddushin, Talmud Torah
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:59:29PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:
:> The bit about mezanos vetolos beba'aleihen is not the basis for any
:> halakhos. I have no reason to believe it's a chazaqah.
:
: So why did Chazal say it? For the fun of casting aspersions on Bnos
: Yisrael? Twice? In the context of a halachic discussion?
Well, it's really one conversation quoted twice.
But it emphasizes the point. Tav lemeisiv is considered a reason why a
gett would not be zakhin le'adam shelo befanav, even though the marriage
would too likely lead to sin. The desire not to be husbandless, even
by an insufficient husband, is being described as very profound.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 21
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:56:31 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] leap of faith
<<Anyway, that's how I understood REW. R' Elchanan argues that on an
informal level, the idea that the universe had to have a Creator is
as obvious as a Euclidean postulate or the injustice of oppression.
To not believe in G-d requires a formal proof, which one's negios then
determine if they find it sound or specious, and whether they accept
the postulates on which it's built.>>
the Euclidean postulates are based on everyone's daily experience. In fact
we know they are not true in other circumstances (eg on a globe)
The injustice of oppression is more debatable. Surely ISIS believes that
destroying ancient culture and cutting off heads of nonbelievers is a
"mitzvah"
As such the belief in a creator is obvious to one with a religious
upbringing. For years scientists (and ancient philosophers) believed in an
infinitely old world. Even today some scientists are attemping to justify a
big bang without a creator (infinite big bangs , other universes etc.).
The whole idea of axioms/postulates are that they are not provable.
--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150429/5840c79a/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 22
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:53:11 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] leap of faith
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:56:31AM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: the Euclidean postulates are based on everyone's daily experience...
I picked the one about parallel lines because no one ever experienced
infinitely long parallel lines. They are based on imagining an
extrapolation from experience.
: we know they are not true in other circumstances (eg on a globe)
Thus my parenthetic remarks about flat space. It also doesn't work
in Einsteinian Spacetime, as space is no longer believed to be flat.
...
: As such the belief in a creator is obvious to one with a religious
: upbringing. For years scientists (and ancient philosophers) believed in an
: infinitely old world. Even today some scientists are attemping to justify a
: big bang without a creator (infinite big bangs , other universes etc.).
:
: The whole idea of axioms/postulates are that they are not provable.
My point exactly -- there are third options between logical proofs and
leaps of faith. Logical proofs are only one way to justify belief.
The Kuzari points to tradition, which may boil down to
reliabilism. (Something you learned from a source that has a track record
of being reliable.)
I was saying that REW, like R' Aqiva, appealed to the self-evident nature
of the universe having a Designer. Closer to the way we accept our
postulates than a proof. And that this is so obvious look around at
what was created, that belief is the default state for humans.
And then REW continues that it takes an act of will to accept a
counter-proof despite the self-evidence.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 25th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 3 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Netzach: When is domination or
Fax: (270) 514-1507 taking control too extreme?
Go to top.
Message: 23
From: Chana Luntz
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 10:02:27 +0100
Subject: Re: [Avodah] RYBS's Talk on Hafkaas Kiddushin, Talmud
RTK writes:
> I think "kulan mezanos" refers to all women, and it means all women can
> be seduced,
You may be able to derive, from other contexts, that all women can
be seduced - but that is not what is being discussed in the specific
gemorros referred to. Our gemora is discussing what happens specifically
in tav l'meisiv marriages - it gives examples of such marriages, and
then concludes that such marriages result in adultery (and consequent
hidden mamzerim). There is just no way of reading what you want to read
into this piece
> Yes, a woman in a loveless marriage is much more tempted to commit
> adultery, given the right set of circumstances, but
>it is certainly not inevitable. Nor is it correct to deduce that a rav must
>make sure, before he marries a couple, that the woman is not entering a
>loveless marriage! He doesn't have to creep into her heart and mind before
>conducting the wedding, doesn't have to fathom the depths of her motives in
>marrying this man. There are so many motives, so many emotions, how could
>you ever fathom them all?
Remember, none of what I have described is necessarily a consequence
of these gemoros unless you read the gemora with the chiddush of RYBS:
that inherent in the existential condition of womankind is that if a
woman is offered only an inappropriate marriage she will take it because
she cannot bear not to be married.
If you understand it merely that there are and have been women, in
some times and places, who when offered an inappropriate marriage,
will sometimes take it because she cannot bear not to be married, but in
other circumstances and times and places there are women who would refuse
such a marriage - you have no idea what you are faced with in any given
circumstance. And it is of course possible that she knows what she is
doing and has seen what you cannot see, meaning that in fact the marriage
will indeed be a good one. And it would be, as you describe, inappropriate
to creep into her heart and try and fathom what is going on there.
But according to RYBS we know what is going on there, in the woman's
heart - we know it from RYBS's understanding of the pasuk in Breishis
(one certainly does not have to understand the pasuk in Breishis the
way RYBS does, but he is darshaning a pasuk to tell us about the human
condition). A woman wants to be married above all else because she cannot
bear to be alone, she is not capable of making an assessment that any
given marriage, without alternative, may not be the best thing. She is
never capable of that, according to RYBS's understanding of Chazal, this
being an existential condition of womankind. In which case what happens
if an outsider is capable of assessing the reality of the marriage in
question as being one where the parties are fundamentally incompatible?
Does he have an obligation to try and stop the marriage given that the
woman is incapable of protecting herself? Well one might say - tough
luck, it is not an outsider's job, any more than it is an outsider's job
to protect others from a bad bargain in business. But that is where
this further statement of the gemora comes in. A marriage which the
woman has only entered into because she cannot existentially bear to be
unmarried is one with the consequence that such marriage will not in fact
be enough for her and she will commit adultery and produce mamzerim who
are attributed incorrectly to the husband. So if the outsider does not
intervene, he is not just failing to protect the woman from herself, he is
failing to protect society from inherent danger. That raises the stakes
considerably, and would seem to mean that outsiders (such as Rabbaim,
shadchanim etc) do need to be vigilant, and not enable such marriages,
so long as what RYBS says is true, in order to protect our society.
Now I don't think we need a Rav to check a marriage out, before he
marries a couple, to try and determine it is not a tav l'meisiv marriage.
But that is because I think it relatively rare, in our society, that a
woman will take a loveless marriage merely because she cannot bear to
be alone (and I certainly do not think it is a irrebuttable presumption
as per RYBS. Nor, as Rav Lichtenstein says, does the halacha over
the centuries take this as an irrebuttable presumption despite RYBS's
vehemence). And we don't have spend our lives worrying about uncommon
cases even if we acknowledge that such cases may exist (and even if, in
hindsight, if a marriage turns out to be unquestionably inappropriate,
we might need to consider whether perhaps the woman in question *might*
have been willing to go through with it anyway). But if RYBS were
right and it is indeed a fundamental existential part of a woman's
nature, unchanging throughout time and not infrequently occurring,
to take whatever marriage is on offer, then we as a society do need
such safeguards, because of the potential consequences, and if there
is any hint that in fact this might be a tav l'meisiv marriage, since
the woman is not able, according to RYBS, to protect herself from it,
the Rav/shadchan etc would seem to have the obligation to investigate
and if in doubt, to protect our society by preventing the marriage.
>Toby Katz
>t6...@aol.com
Regards
Chana
Go to top.
Message: 24
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:37:18 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Eilu v'eilu
I wrote:
: But then, as I was reviewing this post, my mind turned to the Tanur
: Shel Achnai. R' Eliezer had a minority view, and R' Yehoshua was in
: the majority. I've got to believe that both views were firmly grounded;
: this machlokes was surely just as L'Shem Shamayim as any between Hillel
: and Shammai. I'd *like* to say that Klapei Shmaya, both views were Truth.
R' Micha Berger responded:
> We discussed bas qol, and why we follow the bas qol that says
> "vehalakhah kebeis Hillel" despite the anur shel achnai story. I
> listed the opinions in the Encyc Talmudit here
> <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/legislative-authority-of-bas-qol>
>
> It's not 100% accepted that the bas qol was really endorsing R'
> Eliezer's opinion in this particular machloqes, rather than
> defending his shitah in general -- "halakhah kemoso bekhol maqom",
> or that it was a test. ...
I apologize for not being clear enough. I was not refering to the Bas Kol
part of the story. Rather, I was referring to the end of the story, when
Eliyahu Hanavi was asked for Hashem's take on the incident, and he quoted
Hashem as laughing, "Nitzchuni banai!"
Regardless of how the Bas Kol might be interpreted, is there any way to
understand "Nitzchuni banai!" other than Hashem personally siding with one
of the litigants, and losing?
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5540c29a485cf429a1a7cst02vuc
Go to top.
Message: 25
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:46:38 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] brochos from the amud (was: tefillat haderech)
R' Micha Berger wrote:
> RYBS ... then continues that the idea of having intent not
> to want to do a mitzvah bothers him, and so RYBS said he
> says the berakhah on Hallel along with the chazan. (Which
> is what my father does, and what I grew up with.)
Data point: Although I have not noticed people doing this for the bracha on
Hallel, this IS the common practice for the Shehecheyanu at Kol Nidre, at
least according to the ArtScroll and Koren machzorim.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5540c4bfde4b244bf3c8cst03vuc
Go to top.
Message: 26
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:53:19 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Not saying Tachanun (was Yom Haatzmaut)
Reposted from Hakhel:
> ... Rav Soloveitchik, obviously upset, instead gave Shiur
> on the importance of keeping the Tzuras HaTefillah intact.
> Shemone Esrei is followed by Chazaras Hashatz, which is
> followed by Tachanun, and then followed by Ashrei and U'va'
> Letzion--and we do not have the right or privilege of
> changing that, he opined. ...
R' Ben Waxman asked:
> I looked through the Beit Yosef OH 131 where he discusses
> the days on which Tachanun isn't said. The BY does not
> list all the days that we skip (like Purim Qatan or Pesach
> Sheni). These came later.
>
> So when did this idea (that we can't change when Tachanun
> is said or not said) start?
I'm not sure if you are asking the correct question. You presume there was
a time when Tachanun was *said* on Purim Katan, and then Tachanun was
*omitted* on Purim Katan. I see another possibility, but I must point out
that this idea stems from my total ignorance of the History Of Tachanun.
Perhaps, since the day when Tachanun first began, the list of days has
never changed. What did happen (perhaps) is that some places said it on
Purim Katan, and some places did not. Over time, the minhag of skipping it
spread to more and more places, but that's somewhat different than if a
community would suddenly decide that they had a new appreciation for the
significance of the day, and hence wanted to stop saying Tachanun.
But either way, I'm not sure of the exact nature of RYBS's objection. It is
one thing for a community to change its mind about the significance of the
day (as in RMB's example of Purim Katan), and quite another for the day
itself to acquire a new significance - as in the example of Yom Haatzma'ut.
Shulchan Aruch already establishes the ability for a community to establish
holidays, and this has been done many times. A good example to my mind is
the chasidic groups who celebrate the anniversary of their rebbe's release
from prison. Would RYBS insist that they say Tachanun on such days?
Thus, I am drawn to conclude that RYBS must not be taken as too absolutist.
He cannot have meant that the current list of Tachanun days must remain
enshrined in stone forever. I beleive that he must have meant that the
question of saying Tachanun on Yom Haatzma'ut is a serious one, to be dealt
with seriously by the poskim and leaders of the community. Alas, I
personally have seen many cases of where it is decided by those who attend
the minyan, on a purely emotional basis, with no thought to the halachos
involved, and with no consultation with the LOR.
On the other hand, among the many tasks the LOR must deal with, is deciding
when he should or should not get involved with the tzibur's choices.
Although it does not address Tachanun, I would like to close with a
reference to The Rav's opinions about a different tefilah which he
"opposed, on halachic grounds". R' Mike Gerver wrote on Mail Jewish (http://www.ott
mall.com/mj_ht_arch/v38/mj_v38i49.html) in January 2003:
> (This is a continuation of my previous e-mail summarizing
> the talk given on "The Rav and Medinat Yisrael" by Rabbi
> J. J. Shachter on motzei shabbat, Jan. 25, at Lechu
> Neranana in Raanana.)
> ... ... ...
> Rabbi Shachter quoted Rabbi Walter Wurzberger zt"l as
> saying that the Rav's attitude toward Israel was
> completely opposed to messianism, to the idea that the
> founding of the State was an initial step to the geula
> [final redemption]. Thus the Rav did not approve of Gush
> Emunim. He even opposed, on halachic grounds, saying the
> tefillah for the State of Israel in shul on Shabbat
> morning, which only speaks of the State as "reishit
> tzmichat geulateinu" [the beginning of the sprouting of
> our redemption]. Rabbi Shachter, knowing this, assumed
> that the tefillah for the State of Israel would not be
> said at the Shabbat morning minyan held at Maimonides
> School, a minyan that the Rav started in 1962, and which
> generally did things according to his minhag. When Rabbi
> Shachter was appointed to his position as director of the
> Soloveitchik Institute a couple of years ago, and took
> over as rabbi of the Maimonides School Shabbat minyan, he
> was surprised to find that they were saying the tefillah
> for the State of Israel. He asked someone why, and the
> answer was interesting. One Shabbat morning, when the Rav
> was still alive and in good health, someone started saying
> the tefillah for the State of Israel. The Rav turned to
> someone next to him and said {Rabbi Shachter imitated the
> Rav's accent) "You would have thought they would have
> asked me!" That was all. He didn't make any attempt to
> stop them from saying the tefillah for the State of Israel,
> and didn't think it was his place to ask the congregation
> not to say it if they wanted to.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5540aa3d6d7282a3d2b95st01vuc
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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.)