Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 6

Mon, 09 Jan 2017

• 1. The Many Facets of Asarah B'Teves (Cantor Wolberg)
• 2. Misquotations (Jay F. Shachter)
• 3. Asara b'Teves (A Minor Fast with Major Chords) (Cantor Wolberg)
• 4. Need for a Mehitza (was Re: [Areivim] Possibly the first film of the Kotel, 1911) (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: Need for a Mehitza (was Re: [Areivim] Possibly the first film of the Kotel, 1911) (Harry Maryles)
• 6. eilu v'eilu (M Cohen)
• 7. Davening at the Kosel (was Need for a Mehitza) (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Re: Davening at the Kosel (was Need for a Mehitza) (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: women sofrot (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)
• 10. The challenge of Torah U' Madda for our time (Saul Guberman)
• 11. Re: The challenge of Torah U' Madda for our time (Harry Maryles)
• 12. Re: The challenge of Torah U' Madda for our time (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Re: The challenge of Torah U' Madda for our time (Micha Berger)

Nobody has mentioned the fast of a bad dream.
If one has a bad dream, you are supposed to fast even ON SHABBOS,
so I would think, kal v?chomer, you would fast on Friday.

> 
> (TO gild that lily: Not only was Binyamin innocent of this crime ...
>

You need to re-read King John.  Gilding a lily might improve it in
some way.   But not gilding refined gold.  Or painting a lily.

Off-topic, perhaps -- but Jews, especially Jews engaged in a
discussion of texts, should not make a practice of misquoting texts.
It has a bad effect on the character.


                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 N Whipple St
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784   landline
                                (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

Asarah b?Teves, commemorating the beginning of the siege of Yershalayim,
is considered by many to be a minor fast. Though it may be halachically a
minor fast, it has a major significance of which they lose sight. They believe 
that it ought to be enough to commemorate the destruction of the temple on 
Tisha b?Av which, after all, is the main reason of our mourning for Zion and 
Jerusalem. The preliminary stage has, so they assume, no significance in itself. 
What these people are overlooking is one important aspect which we find expressed 
in the Mishnah of Taanith, Ch. 3, Mishnah 6. There we read that the sages once
decreed a Day of Fast because two wolves had eaten up two children in 
Transjordania. According to one opinion, the fast was even decreed for the 
simple reason that two wolves had been only ?sighted? in Transjordania. The
meaning underlying the institution of this Fast was that it is much easier to 
prevent a misfortune in its opening stage. Had the Jews in 586 B.C.E. and 
70 C.E. considered their position properly, listened to the word fo their prophets
and sages and taken the siege of Yershalayim as a warning signal, the fall of
Jerusalem and the destruction of the beis hamikdash may have been avoided. 
The Fast of tenth of Teves  is therefore a reminder not to wait until it is too late,
but to follow the voice of our conscience. I submit we are living in an era of 
Sinat Chinam and when we start to stifle our inner voice even in apparently
unimportant things and we fail to follow the voice of our conscience, it leads in
the end to our moral disintegration. This is also the reason that the prophet 
Jeremiah stresses so often that God sent His prophets early, as e.g. in Ch. 7,
V.25-6: ?Ever since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt 
unto this day; and though I have sent unto you all My servants, the prophets daily, 
early and often, yet they hearkened not unto Me, nor inclined their ears, but made 
their necks stiff; they did worse than their fathers.?  
May we, on this ?minor? fast day, make major resolutions to take the moral path and 
eschew more of the yetzer hara than in the past. 


Apparently, the tenth of  Tevet  is  "the  Day of God" about which many prophets spoke:
the tenth  day of the tenth month. The number ten in Kabbala is  related  to  the  sefira of 
malkhut  (kingship), and therefore  the very essence of the day is appropriate  to the  theme of God's kingship.

At 01:34 PM 1/8/2017, Harry Maryles wrote:
>You don't need a Mechitza if you are not in a Shul. Kedushas Beis 
>Hakenesses does not apply. There are for exampe no Mechitzos in 
>hotels or catering halls - when at a wedding the men will gather to 
>Daven Mincha or Maariv. There are women in the same room walking 
>about all over in those circumstances.
>
>The question is whether the Kotel Plaza is a Shul or not. At least 
>whether that part of it on that is on the outside That is still 
>unresolved in my mind. (Not that part that is on the inside - that 
>apparently IS a shul).
>
>HM

I am sending my response to Avodah,  because you have raised a halachic issue.

Just because you see things done a certain way (often)  does not mean 
that what is done is correct according to halacha.  At the weddings 
that I have attended, the men go off in a corner or into a hallway to 
daven.  I do not know if this is proper or not.  As far as hotels 
go,  when I have been at a hotel for a weekend there is always a 
mechitza for the davening.

I found the following at http://tinyurl.com/hw4snbk


Davening Without Mechitzah

August 14th, 2012

M'ikar ha-din may someone daven in a place where there is no 
mechitzah (b'ofen that there is no shailo of seeing any ervah of any 
of them women.) What's the makor in halacha for having a mechitzah?

Answer:

The two basic sources are the Gemara in Sukkah (51b) concerning the 
Beis Ha-Mikdash, and the Gemara in Kiddushin (81a) where an anecdote 
is mentioned concerning the separation of men from women at public gatherings.

Rav Moshe Feinstein (1:39) understands that there is full obligation 
to make this separation, including a partition (and not merely a 
separation), and applies it to every gathering where men and women 
are present. In his opinion (based on Rashi and the Rambam) the 
purpose of the mechitzah is to prevent mingling and kalus rosh. 
Others argue that the purpose is to prevent improper thoughts, the 
practical difference being of course the quality of the partition.

There is no formal obligation on davening in a place without a 
mechitzah, so that if one has to daven in a makeshift room, and there 
is no mechitzah, there is no prohibition of doing so.

However, one must not daven in a place where there is no mechitzah on 
a permanent level, for this would imply granting legitimacy to this 
forbidden practice which runs contrary to a well-known halachah.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170108/3724d4ea/attachment-0001.htm>

On Jan 8, 2017, at 3:10 PM, Prof. Levine <larry62...@optonline.net> wrote:
...
> I found the following at http://tinyurl.com/hw4snbk
> 
> Davening Without Mechitzah
...
>> There is no formal obligation on davening in a place without a
>> mechitzah, so that if one has to daven in a makeshift room, and there
>> is no mechitzah, there is no prohibition of doing so.

>> However, one must not daven in a place where there is no mechitzah
>> on a permanent level, for this would imply granting legitimacy to this
>> forbidden practice which runs contrary to a well-known halachah.

You will note that Me'ikar hadin there is no prohibition to Daven without
a partition. The custom in hotels during weddings that I mentioned in
my prior comment was based on comment made by Rabbi Dovid Zucker RK of
the CCK. I didn't make it up.

HM

Interesting insights on eilu v'eilu (and other issues)
From R Moshe Shapiro zt'l

<http://j.mp/2j7eeOa>> [On scribd.com -micha]

At 05:31 PM 1/8/2017, Harry Maryles wrote:
>You will note that Me'ikar hadin there is no 
>prohibition to Daven without a partition. The 
>custom in hotels during weddings that I 
>mentioned in my prior comment was based on 
>comment made by Rabbi Dovid Zucker RK of the CCK. I didn't make it up.
>
>HM
Let me raise another issue about davening at the 
Kosel,  namely,  the fact that the entire Kosel 
Plaza is outside.  (I know that there are places 
on the side that are inside where people also daven.)

 From http://dinonline.org/2012/07/11/davening-outdoors/


Is it problematic to daven outdoors?
Thanks.

Answer:

One should not daven in an open area outdoors, 
and should daven in a closed building, or a sheltered area.

Sources:

The Gemara (Berachos 34b) writes that it is wrong 
(arrogant ? chatzuf) to daven in an open field.

Rashi explains that in an open field, one doesn?t 
feel fear of the King, and one doesn?t pray with 
a broken heart. Tosafos, however, understands 
that the concern is for passers-by, who are 
liable to disturb a person?s davening.

The Magen Avraham (90:6) rules that the problem 
is that davening outside makes a haughty 
statement: ?Even though there are passers-by, 
they will not disturb my intent in davening!? This is arrogant and wrong.

The Shulchan Aruch (90:5) rules that one should 
not daven in an open place, and the Mishnah 
Berurah (11) adds that those who are always 
travelling should can daven in an open place, but 
should try to daven by a tree.

Therefore, although it is not forbidden to daven 
outdoors, it is wrong to daven in an open area, 
and one should seek a sheltered place.


----------
Presumably there are explanations regarding why 
the Kosel Plaza is not considered davening 
outdoors.  I would be interested in hearing them.

YL 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170109/04833762/attachment-0001.htm>

Truth be told there was no mechitza at the Kosel until after 1967 as 
far as I know.  However,  there apparently were no minyanim there 
then, at least this is what I was told.  People davened privately.

Can anyone verify this?

R' SZN:
> no one though has suggested that a tora in non-O hands has defective
> provenance...

I've heard that in pre-war Europe there were STAM "factories" and have
heard that people distrust the kashrus of old sifrei torah from certain
areas because of that.

[AhS YD 281:9 says this, but for yir'ei Shamayim -- not mei'iqar hadin.
-micha]

KT,
MYG

An article by Rebbetzin Dr. Rivka Press Schwartz.  Interesting thought and
critiques on MO. As an administrator for a MO High School, I think she is
going to have a large impact.

A one line summary - Time to move beyond Brisk and Rav J.B. Soloveitchik.

https://rpschwartz.com/2017/01/05/what-ar
e-we-so-afraid-of-the-challenge-of-torah-umadda-for-our-time

Not only that, but Rebbetzin Dr. Schwartz's essay is an appeal toengage
in the modern scholarship of the Torah as a legitimate application
ofTuM. While I understand where she is coming from, I reject that
ModernSchoarship has anything at all to do with the 'T' Of TuM. Only the
'M' - an expandeddefinition of Mada does not negate the essence of what
TuM is. Which has manyinterpetations as outlined by Dr. Lamm in his book
of the same name. And asadditionally interpreted by RAS in his book Logic
of the Heart, Logic of theMind. That Dr. Schwartz feels compelled to do
so based on her academic trainingdoes not mean anyone else should feel
that way. I certainly don't.

HM

An article by Rebbetzin Dr. Rivka Press Schwartz.  Interesting thought and
critiques on MO. As an administrator for a MO High School, I think she is
going to have a large impact.

A one line summary - Time to move beyond Brisk and Rav J.B. Soloveitchik.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't really find much new  in this piece.  What I always  understood
the basic Brisk position to be was that the halachic process has its own
reality which may differ from what is otherwise considered reality. This is
true of legal systems in general. The article basically argues for a
different approach grounded in current perceptions of how to define
reality.  To me the more interesting question is how  will the overarching
question be decided, and who will do so. (My answer -a delicate dance
between the rabbinate and the laity, in a not fully transparent or
conscious manner)
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 02:30:21PM -0500, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote:
: An article by Rebbetzin Dr. Rivka Press Schwartz...
...
: https://rpschwartz.com/2017/01/05/wha
: t-are-we-so-afraid-of-the-challenge-of-torah-umadda-for-our-time

This seems to be the topic de jour on Facebook, but I must admit my read
of the article doesn't really align with how most people responded to it.
Truth be told, I hear in the paper a 3 part argument:

1- MO is about the harnessing of modernity in the service of Hashem. And
therefore there is something wrong with MO's unwillingness to address
Post-Modernism.

2- This unwillingness is due to an overly slavish attachment to R JB
Soloveitchik's thought. Which:

a- has Brisk's high wall between halakhah, which is seen as the only
really important thing, and first principles. And

b- draws from the field of philosophy as it existed before he game to
YU. Thus closing the door on post-Modernism.

3- But if MO did address Post-Modernism as is ought, it would accept
the historicization and psychlogization of halakhah.

Here I believe Rn/Dr RPS conflates two things, based on the two aspects
of point 2:
There is the psychologization of halakhah the way RSRH or a Telzer would
do it -- explaining taam hamitzvah in terms of the mitzvah's effects
on the psyche. Or historical explanations, or....

And to someone who chose R' Shimon's derekh over Brisk specifically
because of enjoying discussions of why, that sounds wonderful.

Rav Shimon in particular, whose hashkafah is very humanistic -- one
where the primary value is ehralchkeit, and frumkeit its handmaiden,
and who emphasizes the need for a healthy self-image and sense of
self-worth, has a lot to say MO Jews are ready to hear.



And then there is the historical and psychological study of those
who made the halakhah, and understanding the law in that light. Which
would be a call to embrace Historical School Judaism. Because we know
from experience that the Historical School is unlikely to support a
traditional halakhic process, we can also posit that there are bigger
reasons for our not heading in this direction than tunnel-vision focus
on the Rav's thought. Chassidishe posqim would be no more satisfied.

That said, I agree with the idea that we need a broader range of
ideologies, and that MO is losing something by overly focusing on the
Rav's derivative of Brisk. (I have commented elsewhere on the difficulty
of adapting the Rav's very subjective worldview to something that could
actually be followed by the masses -- people who are neither academics
nor posqim.)

Just to focus on one set of metaphors:
> It wasn't until the twenty-first century that Peter Galison asked us
> what Einstein was spending all of his days working on (reviewing patent
> applications in the Bern patent office, that's what), and asked us to
> think about how looking at numerous patents directed towards coordinating
> timekeeping on the railroads, so that distant trains could be sure
> that they were leaving and arriving in stations on the same schedule,
> might have affected the ways he thought about questions of simultaneity,
> distance, and speed so implicated in the theory. The purely theoretical
> achievement of Special Relativity turns out to have a very practical
> and concrete grounding. That does not change the theory, the equations,
> their implications -- but it does force us to rethink both what science
> is and who are the people who do it.

And:
> That I understand that the Theory of Universal Gravitation was the
> product of a specific man [Isaac Newton] situated in a particular
> cultural context, who was involved in some rather nasty fights about
> credit, priority, attribution, and authority -- none of that means that
> I will jump out of my third-floor kitchen window because gravity is not
> "real" or not "true." The choice is not that either our scholars are
> pure, abstracted intellect or they have nothing to say that we must
> take seriously.

Unpacking that metaphor would yield a call for a Bernard Revel Graduate
School and a Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yitzchak Elchanan (RIETS). But despite
the findings in Revel, it wouldn't shake my faith in the traditional
Talmud Torah of RIETS or how RIETS should teach its students about how
to interpret halakhah and work with their congregants in making halakhic
decisions.

And there already is a Revel, a place of Orthodox Wissenschaft, and
the Rav's presence in YU and his role in YU's thought didn't even slow
that down.

If we're talking about a post-Modern approach in Revel, it wouldn't bother
me. It wouldn't speak to me; I think post-Modernism doesn't fit the whole
notion of orthodoxy in any field very well, including Orthodox Judaism.
But that's not the problem. And in fact, maybe ony a Post-Modern Orthodoxy
will speak to many of those Millenials who are leaving.

The problem is (EMPHASIS added):
> Todays Centrist Orthodox world -- the world of Yeshiva University, the
> world that produces the overwhelming majority of the Modern Orthodox
> world's rabbis and Torah teachers -- would generally be comfortable
> with an academic approach to Jewish history. Normative Orthodoxy would
> reject historicizing the text of the Torah itself. And in between we
> have the hakhmei hamesora and the HALAKHIC PROCESS. How we think about
> them, in what context we situate them, and whether we allow ourselves
> to think critically about them using the tools of modern scholarship
> is the unavoidable intellectual challenge for Torah U'Madda for the
> twenty-first century.

The Jewish People tried historicizing the halachic process. Zekhariah
Frankel's dream led to C. Halakhah is a process given to us by G-d,
on the same side of this equation as the text. Perhaps protected
from the psychology of the people because it is supposed to be the
result of human exploration; lo bashamayim hi doesn't make precedent
any less binding.

Last, the author doesn't represent Einstein's relationship with QM
as I would. (Although the history f science is her field, not mine.)
Rather than being too old-world to embrace that new, seemingly irrational,
thing, he was one of its early key players, even while objecting to the
possibility that the world works that way.

And this too can be worked into the metaphor.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
mi...@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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



_______________________________________________
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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)