Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 044

Wednesday, May 5 1999

• Re: The Rav on Sefiro
• Talmidie R. Akivo and the Holocaust
• gedolai ha-dor and retrospective reinterpretation
• Re: Talmidie R. Avkio and the Holocaust
• Pesahim 112a
• The Rav (ie R. Soloveitchik) on sefirah
• Avot as Individuals
• Rambam and Kollel Stipends, and calendar
• Problematic year 4595
• Re: Ma'aser Kisafim and Yissachar
• Of Baseball Games and Fundraising Dinners
• R. Moshe on "Minhag America"
• Re: Of Baseball Games and Fundraising Dinners
• Re: The Rav (ie R. Soloveitchik) on sefirah
• Re: R. Moshe on "Minhag America"
• Re: Pesahim 112a
• Re: Of Baseball Games and Fundraising Dinners
• "minhag America?"
• More Luach
• Re: The Rav (ie R. Soloveitchik) on sefirah
• Re: Avot as Individuals

In a message dated 5/4/99 9:22:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< Indeed I heard besheim the Rav that it was the reius part that was 
critical.  so
 listeing to music in private was ok, but playing a guitar amongst friends 
was 
 not.  My 9th grade rebbe interprted the Rav to prohibit group acitivites 
such as
 attending baseball games, because of the reius aspect.  
  >>

The baseball issue is interesting. I have heard some talmidim of the Rav say 
it is mutar, because it is not really rai'ut, but I also happen to know that 
R' Schacter was not in favor of going to ball games during s'firoh.

Jordan

Yasher Koach to both Avi Pechamn and Micha Berger for their posts.

My simple approach is a bit parallel:

1) R. Akivo's talmidim (analogous perhaps to Nodov v'Avihu) got treated with 
Midas haDin.  IOW in midas horachamim terms, they were certainly not amongst the
worst people around.

2) (This is a bit speculative).  Sometimes Chazal take an event and assign a 
meaning to it.  (Chazal's Search for Meaning?)  The meaning sometimes appears to
be a form of blaming, but it is really intended to convey a moral lesson, some 
mussar haskeil.

This IMHO explains Chazal's occasional "Avos Bashing".  It's not that they are 
trying to reduce our respect for the Avos, it's an attempt to teach us something
based upon events that actually happened, so that we can learn from them.  

Yes, this kind of moralizing does appear to be blaming/bashing at times.  I just
choose to see it as a way of making sense out of it, in a productive way.

As I've said to my congregation, I cannot explain the holocaust, but I can learn
some lessons from it.  Then again, just because I buy this sevoro, doesn't mean 
other people will.

Comments are welcome.  I need an answer by Shabbos!

Rich Wolpoe 

Alan Davidson <DAVIDSON@UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU>

>>Well (tongue in cheek) if people citing a gadol for interpretations opposite
of what one actually said, then I guess we should disqualify the Lubavitcher
Rebbe and Reb Moshe as well, nu?<<

I'm not sure I get this one. 

Paranthetically, I once asked a Meshichist oriented Lubavicher point blank, did 
the rebbe ever refer to himself as Moshiach?  He told me, never.  Rather, the 
rebbe himself referred to his father-in-law the frierdiker rebbe as Moshiach and
only by the chasidim read into it that he was considered Moshiach.  IOW, some 
chasidim admit to putting a spin on their own rebbe's explicit statements, 
perhaps infering what the rebbe never meant to imply...

Rich Wolpoe

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> : 2) What caused aveilus to be observed during Sefiro
> 
> According to the Aruch HaShulchan, we observe sefiro to commemorate
> talmidei
> R' Akiva and those killed in the Crusades.
> 
> : 3) What prohibitions are observed because of Sefiro?  How did
> they evolve?
> 
> In the next halachah he explains that the minhag emerged in the
> days of the
> ge'onim not to get married during omer. Later, we accepted upon
> ourselves a
> more complete availus.
> 
> To me it really looks like the Ah"Sh is implying that it was the
> Crusades that
> triggered this intensification.

I agree with you.  I think that it is also interesting that the
minhag of the Ramo pushes the Aveilut forward--towards the middle and
end of sefirah.  This coincides with the brunt of the destruction
during the Crusades, which occurred around the end of Iyar/beginning
of Sivan.  

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

R. Daniel Eidensohn asks regarding the story of R. Akiva and Rashbi in
Pesahim 112a:

>1) Why did R. Shimon threaten his own Rebbe? Is there any other
>example of such behavior?

>2) What was the significance of the 5 (6 according) to the
>Medrash that R. Akiva taught in response to the threat?

Regarding the first question, one may add an additional question: Rashbi
threatens to have his father surrender R. Akiva to the government.  But,
according to the Gemara, R. Akiva is already in prison (for teaching
Torah, as Rashi points out).  Indeed, Rashbi insists that only he is in
danger; as he tells RA, "ve-halo egel ba-sakkanah."  Al korhenu, the
threat cannot be understood literally.  Two possibilities: either Rashbi
is simply expressing his unbounded urge to learn with RA, to the point
of threatening his Rebbe's life.  This is possible, but more than a bit
surprising.  Or, more likely, he is threatening to turn himself in.  In
other words, he is telling RA, if you won't teach me, I will tell my
father to report on you that -- you taught me Torah, thereby causing me
to be thrown into prison as well.  I think this explanation fits well
with the rest of the story.

Regarding the five, I would not have though it any more significant than
the seven attributed to R. Akiva earlier in the Gemara or the four
attributed to Rebbe later on.  But, then, Briskers don't tend to get
hung up on numerology.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Rich Wolpoe wrote:

>>My 9th grade rebbe interprted the Rav to prohibit group
>> acitivites such as
>> attending baseball games, because of the reius aspect.

Moshe Feldman asks:

>I heard that too.  To be honest, I never understood that chumrah.
>"Seudat m'reut" implies more than just a group activity; it implies
>simcha caused by group activity.  With respect to attending a
>baseball game--(1) it is not clear that this is true "simcha" and (2)
>while it is in public and a large crowd does enhance the excitement,
>it is not clear to me that this is parallel to the simcha caused by
>PERSONAL interaction with a group.

>I also wonder how the "seudat m'reut" stricture should be interpreted
>in 1999, in a society where pleasures are easy to come by (as a
>matter fact, I always wondered about those who didn't listen to music
>on the radio during sefirah but do other much more pleasurable
>activities, e.g. go to an excellent restaurant).  The seudat m'reut
>of chazal was a special event causing lots of simcha; when I attend a
>baseball game (and, admittedly I'm not a rabid fan) I don't get
>terribly excited or happy (maybe young kids do).

The Rav did explicitly prohibit attending baseball games during sefirah,
for the reasons mentioned.  Moshe's questions about this shitah are
difficult to understand.  Though he admits to not being a baseball fan,
he concedes that the crowd does enhance the excitement.  Why isn't that
enough?  I do not know what he means by  "true" simhah or why he thinks
it is necessary.  As far as "personal interaction,"  I think one does
interact with a large crowd, in a way that is sometimes more sweeping
emotionally than  one does with a small group. I also find his
sociological comment perplexing.  It seems clear that contemporary
society still puts a premium on the attendance of live event; ticket
prices reflect that.

The key to understanding the rules of sefirah, especially for the Rav,
is hilkhot aveilut.  There is obviously a certain amount of subjectivity
in application of those halakhot.  But the general principle that simhah
is enhanced by sharing an experience with a multitude seems to me to
have sood the test of time.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

R. Wolpoe writes:

>Years Ago,(early 1980's) R. Glucksman spoke at KAJ between Mincho and Maariv
>(parshos Semos or Vo'eiro I believe) saying the following

>The reason that we say Elokei Avorhom, Elokei Yitzchok and Ekokei Yaako and
not
>1 Elokei for all 3, is that while Hashem is one, each one of the Avos
discoverd
>Hashem himself. Implicit is that each  Av perceived a different aspect of
>Hashem..that we need more than one POV to comprehend and appreicate Hashem,
etc.

Actually, we do say Elokei for all of them; we say Elokei Avotenu.  This
makes the recitation of Elokei Avraham, etc. seem even more repetitive.

In his Ra'ayonot al Tefillah (publ in 1974), the Rav (R. YB
Soloveitchik) wrote an almost identical analysis.  After pointing out
the apparent he redundancy, he explains that each of the Avot developed
a personal relationship with Hashem; therefore, Elokei Avraham was
different from Elokei Yitzhak, Who in turn was different from Elokei
Ya'akov.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

a poster wrote  

>One thing to note in this discussion is that the person who is most
>frequently quoted as the standardbearer against the concept of Kollel
>and being supported by others in order to learn, namely the Rambam,
>himself had a Y/Z arrangement with his brother David, until his brother
>drowned while on a business voyage, forcing the Rambam to then support
>himself by way of a medicial practice.  The Rambam was incredibly close
>to this brother, a letter between them is on display at the Israel
>Museum and it is literally heartbreaking, as it was the last
>communcation between them before the brother drowned, and it is full of
>such affection.

I don't think the Rambam's relationship to his brother was a Y/Z relatinship, or
was in contradiction to his later stance.  In the Rambam's list of acceptable
(or even desirable) ways to support talmide hachamim, he specifically lists
investing the talmid chacham's money and trading for him.  The Rambam's  brother
was involved in trading the family money.  While the functional result was
similar to Y/X, the mechanism was very different.

Does any one know if the Rambam even mentions Y/Z anywhere?

With regard to the calendar, I was bothered by the frequent assertion that aviv
requires that pesah be within 30 days after the vernal equinox.  In determining
ibbur hashana, aviv is only one of the considerations that the bet din had to
consider.  Given the other considerations that the bet din could consider, it is
clear that the bet din could make pesah fall out more than 30 days after the
equinox, as the requirement for within 30 days after the equinox would seem to
almost uniquely determine the requiremnt of ibbur ( except in the rare case of
pesah falling out right after the vernal equinox).  Indeed, it would seem that
aviv reuqires that pesah be at least after the vernal equinox, and perhaps
within two months, but not within 30 days.  Any discussions of how those who
require 30 days after the equinox reconcile with the possibility of of ibbur for
other reasons?

Meir Shinnar

	Recently I posted some remarks concerning the "Letter of the Rosh
Hagola" from the mid 9-th century (CE)  whose calendrical calculation is
inconsistent with our current algorithm. From the reponses I received I see
that I did not provide enough details to explain precisely which year I was
talking about. The year referred to in the letter (4595) uses the calendar
origin of "Bereishit" (i.e. the year whose Molad is BaHaRad); this calendar
was widely used in Jewish circles until the 10-th century. In our current
calendar we would call that year 4596, since our current calendar uses the
origin of "Yezirah" i.e. the year whose Molad was Vav Yud Daled i.e. 6 hours
14 minutes. As I stated in my previous post, while the Rosh HaGola states
that this year has siman "Zayin-Chet-Gimmel" our current algorithm would
require it to be be "Zayin-Shin-Heh". Sar Shalom, and the sages and scholars
he quotes in his book, as well aware of the above-mentioned difference
between what Remy Landau calls the "Aera Adami" and the "Aera Mundi"
(although they use the Hebrew rather than the Latin terms).  I didn't
mention this point earlier because I didn't want to obfuscate the argument
against the claim that the current calendar algorithm is of Talmudic origin;
however, perhaps I erred and should have pointed out this detail. Thanks for
the responses. (If anyone wishes I can send them a rough translation of the
letter (it is written in Aramaic) or a fax of the text found in Sar Shalom's
book.)

Saul Stokar

In message , Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes
>: I seem to recall that as a result of this, one cannot use Ma'aser
>: Kesafim to pay for a Yissachar/Zevulun relationship.
>
>I have a standing challenge to the chevra to show that there actually is a
>halachah of "ma'aser kesafim". R' Yissachar Frand implied that there was
>not. It really looks like a minhag we're currently creating, whose only
>source (if any) was the 10% tax many autonomous kehillos required from
>their population.
>
>To say that "one can not use ma'aser kesafim to pay for X" would actually
>require proving that it's not only a minhag, but a minhag yisroel or at least
>a din. Otherwise, I'd think the "can not" is a bit harsh.

Well considering that the Rema uses the "can not" formula, it is hard to
say it is a bit harsh.  In Yoreh Deah Hilchos Zedaka siman 349 si'if 1
the Rema notes "v'ain la'asos m'maseh shelo dvar mitzva k'gon neros
l'beis haknesses  or shar d'var mitzva, rak yitennu l'aniyim".

This is under the portion where the SHulchan Aruch brings that the
mitzva min hamuvcha is to give a fifth, and the mitzva benoni is to give
a tenth.  It is only in the next siman that he brings that if he gives
less than a third of a shekel a year, he has not fulfilled the mitvah of
tzedaka at all. But this formulation of an absolute rock bottom amount
that disqulifies one from ztedaka totally and an average performance of
the mitzva of 10% is a long way from a concept of a currently created
minhag.

I believe that some time ago, one of the Gush Virtual Beit Midrish
halacha shiurim was on the subject of ma-aseh kesafim, where, if I
recall correctly (and it must have been before my computer crashed last
August, as it is not on my system anymore) various opinons were cited
which considered it anything from a mitzvah d'orisa to a minhag.  The
discussions were old though (eg rishonic and achronic, not late this
century), so even those opinions that hold that it is in fact a minhag,
it is clearly an sufficiently established minhag such that one can state
what can and can not be included in the total.

Perhaps if you go to the Gush Virtual Beit Midrash website, you can
track down the shiur.


>
>- -mi
>

Kind Regards

Chana


-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

There must be some connection between the two. REC?

My query is, surely fundraising dinners fit under the category of Seu'das
Merei'us. Aveilim, R"L, do not attend them. Yet they proliferate during
Sefira (cut down on music costs).

Vos is der chiluk?

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Moshe Feldman asks;

>Also, is there any point at which even talmidim of the Rav would have
>to accept upon them not shave because that is "minhag America?"

The issue of "minhag America" is a complex one.  Rich Wolpoe has
discussed it in the past.

However, I recently became aware that R. Moshe rejects the notion that
there is such a thing; more specifically, he states on a number of
occasions that there is no minhag New York.  Rather, New York has a din
of a place with two (or more) battei din, wherein different kehillot are
entitled to maintain different customs.  R. Moshe explains that New York
absorbed a large number of Jews from many different locations, which he
felt differed from situations in which a) a town generally maintained a
single set of customs for many centuries or b) an entire town or
region's population moved and settled someplace else, taking its customs
along.

I can provide mar'eh mekomot on request; or perhaps R. Daniel would be
so good as to do so off the top of his head.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

R' YGB asks:
: My query is, surely fundraising dinners fit under the category of Seu'das
: Merei'us. Aveilim, R"L, do not attend them. Yet they proliferate during
: Sefira (cut down on music costs).

Humorous answer: No one considers all those speeches to be entertaining.

Actually, I think it's because the halls are cheaper, since there's less
competition for them.

Either way, it's R' YB Soloveitchik's chidush that the issur is se'udah, and
not music, and that omer is literal aveilus as per someone who lost a karov.
Why are you surprised that "the velt" holds otherwise?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287       MMG"H for  5-May-99: Revi'i, Behar-Bechukosai
micha@aishdas.org                                      A"H O"Ch 317:16-22
http://www.aishdas.org                                 Eruvin 75b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.      Shmuel-II 22

--- "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM> wrote:
> 
> The Rav did explicitly prohibit attending baseball games during
> sefirah,
> for the reasons mentioned.  Moshe's questions about this shitah are
> difficult to understand.  Though he admits to not being a baseball
> fan,
> he concedes that the crowd does enhance the excitement.  Why isn't
> that
> enough?  I do not know what he means by  "true" simhah or why he
> thinks
> it is necessary.  

Chazal prohibited simchat m'reut as being incompatible with avelut. 
(See the Rav's Torah dealing with avelut she'balev and simchat
ha'regel being the opposite.)  Excitement and simcha she'balev are
two different things.  Perhaps baseball games are exciting for some
and bungee jumping is exciting for others.  No one ever prohibited
bungee jumping during sefirah.

> As far as "personal interaction,"  I think one
> does
> interact with a large crowd, in a way that is sometimes more
> sweeping
> emotionally than  one does with a small group. I also find his
> sociological comment perplexing.  It seems clear that contemporary
> society still puts a premium on the attendance of live event;
> ticket
> prices reflect that.

Again, I differentiate between excitement and happiness.  Remember
that in the time of Chazal, simchat m'reut with music was probably
infrequent (weddings, probably not bar mitzvahs).
>
 
> The key to understanding the rules of sefirah, especially for the
> Rav,
> is hilkhot aveilut.  There is obviously a certain amount of
> subjectivity
> in application of those halakhot.  But the general principle that
> simhah
> is enhanced by sharing an experience with a multitude seems to me
> to
> have sood the test of time.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

> However, I recently became aware that R. Moshe rejects the notion that
> there is such a thing; more specifically, he states on a number of
> occasions that there is no minhag New York.
>
> I can provide mar'eh mekomot on request; or perhaps R. Daniel would be
> so good as to do so off the top of his head.

Y.D. II #15 page 19 / O.H. IV #33 page 47/. O.H V #24.6 page 79/
O.H.I #159 page 279/E.H. I #59 page 148. O.H. IV 74.3 page 145
O.H. IV 75.1 page 145.

Reb Moshe doesn't reject the *possiblity* of Minhag America or
New York.
For example in O.H. IV 75.1 page 145 he notes that in Europe
there was no minhag not to take a cold shower on Shabbos. " but
in our country here in america where there are showers we see
that showers are not taken on Shabbos even cold ones. Even though
it is not noted in seforim as a minhag - perhaps showers are not
taken because of ignorance and not with intent of minhag
nevertheless it is appropriate to be machmir when there is no
discomfort because perhaps [the not taking of cold showers] is
because of an intent for a minhag - but when in discomfort one
can be lenient."

                   Daniel Eidensohn
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
               Daniel Eidensohn

"Clark, Eli" wrote:

> R. Daniel Eidensohn asks regarding the story of R. Akiva and Rashbi in
> Pesahim 112a:
>
> >1) Why did R. Shimon threaten his own Rebbe? Is there any other
> >example of such behavior?
>
> Regarding the first question, one may add an additional question: Rashbi
> threatens to have his father surrender R. Akiva to the government.  But,
> according to the Gemara, R. Akiva is already in prison (for teaching
> Torah, as Rashi points out).  Indeed, Rashbi insists that only he is in
> danger; as he tells RA, "ve-halo egel ba-sakkanah."  Al korhenu, the
> threat cannot be understood literally.

The Maharsha states that even being in prison - things could be made worse

> Two possibilities: either Rashbi is simply expressing his unbounded urge
> to learn with RA, to the point of threatening his Rebbe's life.  This is
> possible, but more than a bit surprising.  Or, more likely, he is
> threatening to turn himself in.  In
> other words, he is telling RA, if you won't teach me, I will tell my
> father to report on you that -- you taught me Torah, thereby causing me
> to be thrown into prison as well.  I think this explanation fits well
> with the rest of the story.

To tell one's Rebbe that you will kill him because you love Torah so much
is hard to accept - even if not meant literally.  But your second
alternative would mean that a student can threaten to commit suicide (which
is what prison was in those times) in order to force his rebbe to teach him
Torah?! Finally R. Shimon is poskening before his Rebbe. He doesn't say
"would you please reconsider your decision - he says "if you don't retract
your psak that you won't teach me because of danger and accept my psak that
you must teach me  - I will inform on you".

Anyway you analyze it - the gemora seems to be incongruent with hashkofa and
halacha. I have never heard any event which sounds anyway similar to this
story.


                            Daniel Eidensohn

On Wed, 5 May 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> Either way, it's R' YB Soloveitchik's chidush that the issur is se'udah,
> and not music, and that omer is literal aveilus as per someone who lost
> a karov.  Why are you surprised that "the velt" holds otherwise? 

RYBS's velt seems to participate in fundraising dinners :-).

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In V3 #42  the question is raised:  

"Also, is there any point at which even talmidim of the Rav would have
to accept upon them not shave because that is "minhag America?"

See Hazon Ish, Yoreh Deah, no. 150:1:

"That which was said, [that in a makhloket between two gedolim] 'in Torah 
matters we follow the mahmir' (Avodah Zarah 7a), only applies when one of 
them is not his rebbe, but if one of them is his rebbe he hollows him even 
le-ha-keil...  This din applies both during his lifetime and after his death, 
as long as his rulings are known either from his students or his writings.  
It is permissible to follow one's Rebbe, even to be lenient in Torah matters 
and even if the dissenters are the majority, as long as there wasn't a moshav 
bet din in which they debated with each other and determined the halachah.  
This is what is said in Yevamot 14a, "In the place of R. Eliezer they cut 
wood on Shabbat... In the place of R. Yose haGlili..."

Mark Dratch

Avodah listmember Rabbi Chaim Twerski published an essay some years ago in
a Kovetz Chiddushei Torah, "Ner Ma'aravi" in which he identifies four
epochs in the history of the Luach:

1. The period in which they were mekkadesh al pi Eidim.
2. A period in which they were mekkadesh al pi Chesbon but Bnei Bavel were
not yet beki'im b'kviusa d'yarcha.
3. A period in which they were mekkadesh al pi Chesbon and Bnei Bavel were
now beki'im b'kviusa d'yarcha.
4. The period of the formal calendar set by Hillel II.

R' Twerski postulates that leap Elluls began to be a real possibility only
in epoch #2, and that in epoch #3 it was conceivable that Bnei EY and Bnei
Bavel might legitimately observe Yomim Tovim on two separate days, so long
as word of the kevius that year in EY had not yet reached them.

He notes that the Chazon Ish OC 130 has a similar approach. I have not yet
looked up the CI.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

with all this talk about assuring sporting events during sefirah, i get
the impression that the people on the list say it's ok the rest of the
year--is this true????????
E.G.

In a message dated 5/5/99 12:04:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< In his Ra'ayonot al Tefillah (publ in 1974), the Rav (R. YB
 Soloveitchik) wrote an almost identical analysis.  After pointing out
 the apparent he redundancy, he explains that each of the Avot developed
 a personal relationship with Hashem; therefore, Elokei Avraham was
 different from Elokei Yitzhak, Who in turn was different from Elokei
 Ya'akov. >>

I have heard a slightly different take on that, quoted in the name of the 
Rav. The Avos were each of them m'chadesh the idea that mere finite man could 
even have a prayer relationship with the infinite Borei Olam. The havah 
aminah being that mortals could not approach God to communicate, as we didn't 
exist in the same plane. Tha Avos demonstrated that prayer was possible.
By the way, what is Ra'ayonot al T'filah, and where does one get it?

Jordan

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]