Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 409

Friday, March 3 2000

• Re: Principles For Sale - Contact Shas
• Re: Avodah V4 #408
• TIDE v. TuM -- RSRH on headcovering, teachers of secular subjects
• Re: Tephillah laMelech
• Chilonim/Haredim, Problems and solutions
• Re: TIDE v. TuM -- RSRH on headcovering, teachers of secular subjects
• Principles For Sale - Contact Shas
• Women as Guests
• Learning schedule
• Re: Rav Ovadia Yosef and halachic status of the Golan
• Re: TIDE v. TuM - I Think I Got it
• RE: Principles for Sale; Vice President
• Re: Principles for Sale; Vice President
• Re: Learning schedule
• Re: Chilonim/Haredim, Problems and solutions
• Re: Tephillah laMelech
• Smoking and Halakha

In a message dated 3/2/00 4:24:10 PM US Central Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< How do you justify the Law of Return if this is not a Jewish State? 
 How do you explain giving Jews and only Jews an unfettered right 
 to immigrate here without any quotas whatsoever, to decide to 
 come at any time on a moment's notice? How do you justify all the 
 tax breaks and other benefits that go with that right and only go to 
 Jews? If it's not a Jewish State, and instead it's a Democracy, then 
 we have to treat everyone equally - why should Jews be different? 
 >>

The issue isn't black or white. Israel must be a haven for Jews. To some 
extent, its internal policies must reflect that it's a haven for Jews. It 
must allow observant Jews to observe. Beyond that, Israel has a right to be 
democratic.
 
 > I don't think the Israeli Gedolim are necessarily after money and power. 
But 
 > when they are forced to be political, they must perforce play politics. 
Their 
 > motives may be pure. The "practical" steps they must pursue are far from 
 > pure. And if they don't stand for purity, who will?
 
 << You don't think there are honest politicians in the world and that 
 there never have been? You must have grown up post Watergate, 
 because I can tell you that when I was a kid there were honest 
 politicians in the States (let alone in Israel). My congressman 
 growing up was a Jesuit Priest and believe me he was as clean as 
 a whistle. You want me to name honest politicians in Israel? 
 Yitzchak Shamir is honest. Menachem Begin z"l was honest. And 
 they're not the only ones.>>

I didn't say Gedolim don't make "honest" politicians. But today virtually all 
Israeli political parties, right and left, carry out their dirty work through 
politicians for whom honesty, in all its varied forms, isn't exactly a 
priority. Same over here. I grew up in pre-Watergate America. I think most 
American politicians are reasonably honest, some very much so, then as well 
as now. But personal honesty isn't the issue. Institutional corruption that 
tolerates personal dishonesty, and infects religion along with it, is the 
problem. The inevitability and impact of institutional corruption is 
unavoidable. Separation of church and state for the most part resolves this 
dilemma.
  
 <<There's a tradition of free thought here too. There are secret ballots 
 here too. And there are (I assume) fruhm Jews who disregard how 
 the Gdolim tell them to vote. If there are less, it is only because the 
 issues here are existential to someone who is fruhm.>> 

That's *exactly* my point. Secular politics are vital to the survival of 
Orthodoxy in Israel. That's why the Gedolim hold such secular influence. 
That's why state and religion should be separated -- so that religious 
observance would no longer be beholden to secular political gamesmanship.
 
 << I was as cynical in America as I am today. If anything more so. 
 Freedom of religion in America is sacrosanct - until it blocks your 
 job advancement. . . . Until the day a partner at your law firm (a 
 "Jewish" partner named Christianfield no less - the chozer b'shaila 
 at the firm used to joke with me about how the guy even had Christ 
 in his name) calls you into his office on a Friday and suggests that 
 you change religions so you can stay late to finish his work for 
 him. Until you figure out why you have had nothing but library 
 assignments for the last two years, and are the most senior lawyer 
 in the firm who has never been to the printer. Until you have to go 
 to work without a yarmulka because you have to "fit in" with the 
 goyim, and you need the gadol hador to write a tshuva permitting it, 
 because there are so many fruhm Jews who go to work without 
 yarmulkas that saying anything else would be b'geder gzeira 
 she'ain ha'tzibur yachol la'amod bo. Until you have to "fit in" by 
 going to a treif restaurant and have them pay the fixed price of $85 
 so that you can feel even more uncomfortable eating a fruit salad 
 while they're eating their Beef Wellington. Until you have to eat 
 lettuce and a tomato at a treif restaurant on a job interview because 
 you can't tell them you keep Kosher and they decided to go 
 Japanese. Until you get screamed at by a maniacal partner, 
 because you actually left the office an hour and a half before 
 Shabbos without asking his permission and sent the work he gave 
 you at noon Friday that he wanted "ASAP" back with the cab that 
 took you home to New Jersey. Sacrosanct? Tell that to my friend 
 with smicha who found out he was POP'ed when the memo landed 
 on his desk, when everyone else that happened to was warned not 
 to come to work that day. Tell that to the guy who was told "not 
 enough people saw your work" when he asked why he was POP'ed 
 six months after he was told that he had more reviews than anyone 
 else in the department. Tell that to the one guy in my firm who had 
 the guts to wear a yarmulka to work, who fifteen years later is on a 
 track to nowhere in the same firm - a permanent employee with no 
 opportunity for career advancement. 
 
 Freedom of religion is sacrosanct in America until the Almighty 
 Buck calls. Buck is sacrosanct in America. He is the only thing 
 that is sacrosanct there. And if I keep this up, I am going to start 
 calling it Amreika just like my friend on mail jewish and tachlis 
 does....>>

I've been a lawyer for over 20 years, most of which were spent in large law 
firms. I was a partner at McDermott, Will & Emery in Chicago, which, at the 
time, was (incorrectly) thought by many to be echt-WASPy and vaguely 
anti-semitic. 

Things have changed rapidly for Jews in this environment. Jews hold very 
powerful positions in many of the old-line firms that seemed quite 
uncomfortable with us only ten years ago. But it's still a free country, and 
many private institutions continue to discriminate against lots of minorities 
for lots of stupid reasons. We still have the right to turn our backs on such 
discrimination and take these institutions on -- and beat the stuffing out of 
them -- by competing against them in the open marketplace. There's a lot more 
competition then there used to be, and with it, a lot more freedom. 
Institutional anti-semitism in America has become less and less a problem 
over the years. Governmental anti-semitism is virtually dead in most places 
in the country.

Agonizing over one's personal experiences with discrimination in law firms, 
brokerage houses, etc., is a waste of time. I've been on the receiving end of 
it myself. If some guy gums up your career because he doesn't like Jews, then 
walk into his office, shut the door, and tell him what you think. Use direct, 
colorful langauge. Don't be subtle. Don't talk abstractly about "fairness": 
instead, if necessary, explain your position more concretely, with lashon 
hora of the worst type. Get in his face, and then lean forward. If you're too 
dependent on him economically (or psychologically) to tell him off, well, 
then you've got your corrective work cut out for you. Position yourself so 
you can tell him off. And then do it -- or don't do it, but don't blame 
America for his idiocy.
 
 <<Orthodox Jews who have to go out into the non-Jewish world to 
 support themselves know that they are not free. They know that 
 they would rather be home with their wives and children with a 
 Gemara open on the table than sitting in some cheesy bar with a 
 pitcher of beer and three half drunk Irishmen, one of whom happens 
 to be the Boss. But they're too beholden to Buck to ever admit it.>>

That's just not my experience or that of more observant Jews I know who also 
work in the non-Jewish world. The more I see of the rest of the world 
(including, alas, Israel), the freer I feel in America. Anyhow, I *like* 
hanging around cheesy bars with pitchers of beer and half-drunk Irishmen, 
Poles, Italians, Slovaks, and Slovenes. These guys make up most of my hockey 
team. They know I won't play on Shabbos, and that I won't eat the pepperoni 
pizza they order after we play a game. I don't think they care. We're a team; 
we all give each other a break, just as most Americans do when you come right 
down to it. And the beer is good.

David Finch
 

> : a true TuM school, secular studies will be taught by the most outstanding
> : scholar available, even if he is an Apikores...

No. By the scholar who will best serve the educational goal of the
institution and the students. This may entail hiring an irreligious person
over a yere Shamayim, but it does not necessarily entail hiring the best
scholar in some abstract sense.

(By way of analogy, even where theological commitments are not at issue, a
hiring committee will look at areas of specialization, how they dovetail
with those of faculty already on board, interests of students, and so
forth. Sometimes one concludes that a particular candidate is the right
one even if s/he is not the greatest authority; sometimes one may be so
impressed by a particular person that the structure of a department is
re-oriented to make room for that person.

> 
> Not just secular studies. In my day, YU had tinikos shenishbi'u
> ("nebech an apikoris") teaching the borderline courses, such as Hebrew
> and Jewish History.

Not a proof that these individuals were either the greatest  scholars or
those best suited to educate at YU. (ve-D"L)

Our esteemed listowner writes:

>According to legend, RSRH had a frum secular teacher he told not to wear a
>yarmulka to work because the norm for showing respect in a classroom was
>(and is) a bare head. Implied in this story is that the teacher was unique
>in being someone who normally did wear a yarmulka.

>I invite our Yekkes (except for RYGB who apparantly assimilated, r"l) to
>correct my naarative. I used the word "legend" intentionally.

I am not sure about this "legend."  But it may be a garbled account of
an actual event.  R DZ Hoffman, in his Teshuvot Melamed le-Hoil II (YD
#56) discusses whether one can take an oath in secular court bareheaded.
 (He answers yes.)  He relates that he used to teach in R Hirsch's
school in Frankfurt, and R. Hirsch established the practice that the
students would study secular subjects bareheaded.  He goes further and
says that he once visited R. Hirsch with his hat on and R. Hirsch told
him to remove it, because Gentile teachers might see and consider it a
lack of kavod to R. Hirsch.

Note that Hirsch employed non-Jewish teachers.  And that the person he
asked to remove his hat was R. DZ Hoffman, who became the posek of
German Jewry, not a merely a "frum secular teacher."

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

From Shlomo Abeles <sba@blaze.net.au>

Micha Berger wrote:
Subject: Re: Tephillah laMelech

>...Unless you could argue, as the M"A apparantly would,
>that the minhag was /wrong/, what right do we have
>to just drop something from the siddur?<

Maybe the simple reason that this Tefilla
has geenrally been dropped is that over the centuries our people were
forced to say it for the most hated, evil and despicable
rulers (and when doing so, were no doubt, in their
hearts cursing those same despots).

Be forced to say it, was simply adding insult to injury.

Therefore this Tefilla was probably the only one that Yidden
disliked and possibly dumped it at the first opportunity.
Ken Nireh L'fi Aniyas Daati.

Shlomo B Abeles

I decided to raise the subject of the speech by a leading rosh yeshiva
in which he is alleged to have used insulting language concerning the
head of a very prominent Orthodox school to illustrate a perceived
agenda hidden in the discussion about the details of loshon ha'ra.  If
it is forbidden to insult an individual, particularly in a public
fashion - even if we disagree with his ideas (unless he has openly
dissociated himself from torah and mitzvot), then such action is a
denigration of the perpetrator, and repeating such statements should
fall within the rubric of loshon ha'ra.  Not to mention that repeating
the public insult should be loshon ha'ra with respect to the victim.  It
should make little difference that the insult is already in the public
domain.  If the insult was not permissible then neither is its
repetition.  If you argue that the rosh yeshiva must have felt that it
was acceptable, and even a "good idea" to say what he said, and we,
therefore, have the right to repeat it. Why, then, was there such an
immediate reaction, with citations from the "Chofetz Chaim", when
someone cited an article published by a prominent Rav containing private
letters from a European posek?  The author and publisher did not
consider the letters to be a denigration of that posek and put it in the
public domain.  Why, then, is the citation of some of these letters an
issue of loshon ha'ra?  Is it because some people take objection to the
attitude expressed by that posek, and therefore consider the publication
to be a denigration of him?  Then the same attitude should be carried
over with respect to the "soneh Hashem" speech.

Yitzchok Zlochower

Is there not a famous wedding picture of R. Aharon
Kotler  where he was asked to remove his "head
covering" for the picture, and he did? Has anyone seen
such a picture? Is it true?

HM

--- "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM> wrote:
> Our esteemed listowner writes:
> 
> >According to legend, RSRH had a frum secular
> teacher he told not to wear a
> >yarmulka to work because the norm for showing
> respect in a classroom was
> >(and is) a bare head. Implied in this story is that
> the teacher was unique
> >in being someone who normally did wear a yarmulka.
> 
> >I invite our Yekkes (except for RYGB who apparantly
> assimilated, r"l) to
> >correct my naarative. I used the word "legend"
> intentionally.
> 
> I am not sure about this "legend."  But it may be a
> garbled account of
> an actual event.  R DZ Hoffman, in his Teshuvot
> Melamed le-Hoil II (YD
> #56) discusses whether one can take an oath in
> secular court bareheaded.
>  (He answers yes.)  He relates that he used to teach
> in R Hirsch's
> school in Frankfurt, and R. Hirsch established the
> practice that the
> students would study secular subjects bareheaded. 
> He goes further and
> says that he once visited R. Hirsch with his hat on
> and R. Hirsch told
> him to remove it, because Gentile teachers might see
> and consider it a
> lack of kavod to R. Hirsch.
> 
> Note that Hirsch employed non-Jewish teachers.  And
> that the person he
> asked to remove his hat was R. DZ Hoffman, who
> became the posek of
> German Jewry, not a merely a "frum secular teacher."
> 
> Kol tuv,
> 
> Eli Clark
> 
> 
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

From Shlomo Abeles <sba@blaze.net.au>

Harry Maryles wrote:
SUbject: Principles For Sale - Contact Shas
>......why is it that a strongly identifiable orthodox group, headed by a
>Gadol of the stature of R. Ovadia Yosef,  can be so
>easily percieved as willing to sell out it's values
>for money?  ....does selling out ones values qualify as legitmate
>fundraising?  Should Mosdos accept drug money?  Or a Mafia donation?
>Maybe R. Yosf feels ....But why should a recognizable group be
>percieved by the entire civilized world as a sell-out for money?
>Isn't that a chilul HaShem?

I''m glad to see that several posters have sent in their replies

However I would like to add that Hagaon Rabbi Ovadia
Yosef shlita is one of the recognized Poskim of
our generation and, I have no doubt, that he
has considered all of  RHM's sfeikos.

2) For 40 years (until the emergence of Shas),
hundreds of thousands of Sfardi children (and adults),
- besides all the other racist and discriminatory actions against them -
had their Yiddishkeit ripped away  in the Jewish Medina.
The Sfardim have a lot of catching up to do. And the minute they
make (even a just) demand - one hears cries of  Chillul Hashem!.

FMPOV - Kol Hakavod to their leadership - and as long as its done with
Rav O. Yosef's  approval - everything they do is fine with me.

Shlomo B Abeles

<< "I'm prepared to divide my beit midrash in half," Rabbi Tendler said,
     using the Hebrew for Talmudic study hall.  "My synagogue -- never."
     Orthodox women should know, he said, that in synagogue "they're welcome
     guests, but they're guests.  Their presence is not required.  That's
     not their role, to modify the service so that they can participate more
     fully." >>

The last sentence seems a non-sequitor.  At our shul (Chabad) the synagogue
_is_ split in half, and both sides have an equal view of what's going on in
front, and both sides hear equally as well, and so forth.

As Chana/Heather wrote, being a good host is making guests feel
comfortable; and if women are considered guests, that is what we have tried
to do in our shul.

But WADR to Rabbi Tendler, what does _that_ have to do with modifying the
service?

-- Eric

> Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 17:53:56 -0500
> From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
> Subject: Re: Learning Schedule

<<I'm not at MBerger's level :-) (by which I mean the MMG"H line in his
signature)>>

	I never noticed the MMG"H;  what does it mean?  Micha,  I think you are
overdoing the RURT.

Gershon Dubin
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Kibush yachid.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: Rav Ovadia Yosef and halachic status of the Golan


> On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 10:19:00PM +0200, BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> : Indeed, Rav Ovadia Yosef does NOT accord any halachic status of Eretz
> : Yisrael to the Golan. I believe this was also the shitta of Rav Goren.
> 
> Why not? It had such status in David haMelech's day.
> 
> -mi
> 

----- Original Message -----

> According to legend, RSRH had a frum secular teacher he told not to wear a
> yarmulka to work because the norm for showing respect in a classroom was
> (and is) a bare head. Implied in this story is that the teacher was unique
> in being someone who normally did wear a yarmulka.
>
> I invite our Yekkes (except for RYGB who apparantly assimilated, r"l) to
> correct my naarative. I used the word "legend" intentionally.
>

Assimilated into what?

As I said, the ideal and real do not always meet up. There were simply not
enough of the right type of teacher to stock the school.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

The question of whether we would be better off with separation of Church and
State is old and complex; it will not gat solved on Avodah. One need not
accuse Gedolim of being bought off to recognize that the present system has
its problems. One problem is that there are many ketanim in the system from
ward leader to patronage dispenser--money has a way of attracting all kinds
of folks. Why tie this all up with religion? Yitzchak Breitowitz had a great
piece in Moment a couple of years back dealing with reform conversions in
which he advocated such separation, although not in the sense of strict
Establishment Clause jurisprudence here. I think the main concern of those
against it, is the fear that Torah institutions will suffer.

P.S. The VP is the President of the Senate.  The President pro tempore is a
Senator elected by the Senate to preside in the VP's absence, i.e. almost
all the time.  Perhaps we should add the current holder of the office--Strom
Thurmond--to our tefillos as well.

In a message dated 3/2/00 11:55:59 PM US Central Standard Time, sk@ezlaw.com 
writes:

<< The question of whether we would be better off with separation of Church 
and
 State is old and complex; it will not gat solved on Avodah. One need not
 accuse Gedolim of being bought off to recognize that the present system has
 its problems. One problem is that there are many ketanim in the system from
 ward leader to patronage dispenser--money has a way of attracting all kinds
 of folks. Why tie this all up with religion? Yitzchak Breitowitz had a great
 piece in Moment a couple of years back dealing with reform conversions in
 which he advocated such separation, although not in the sense of strict
 Establishment Clause jurisprudence here. I think the main concern of those
 against it, is the fear that Torah institutions will suffer.
  >>

Torah institutions would not suffer if those who are committed to them choose 
to be self-sufficient, morally, politically, and economically. Then such 
institutions would be free to thrive without interference from less observant 
Jews. In any event, Israel, theoretically and as a practice matter, 
"establishes" neither Judaism in general or Orthodox Judaism in particular. 
Even today, the religion is independent of the state, unlike, for example, 
the Church of England or Roman Catholicism in Italy. The relationship between 
Israel and Judaism is sui generis. It fits within no other legal pattern. To 
separate the state from the religion American-style would probably involve 
fewer changes than one might first imagine.

David Finch

On 3 Mar 00, at 0:16, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> > Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 17:53:56 -0500
> > From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
> > Subject: Re: Learning Schedule
> 
> <<I'm not at MBerger's level :-) (by which I mean the MMG"H line in his
> signature)>>
> 
> 	I never noticed the MMG"H;  what does it mean?  Micha,  I think you are
> overdoing the RURT.

IIRC MMG"H is the system of learning found in the Chok l'Yisroel 
Chumashim. But what's RURT? 

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 2 Mar 00, at 23:26, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:

> I decided to raise the subject of the speech by a leading rosh yeshiva
> in which he is alleged to have used insulting language concerning the
> head of a very prominent Orthodox school to illustrate a perceived
> agenda hidden in the discussion about the details of loshon ha'ra.  

I think I'm the guy who dragged the discussion of the letters into a 
discussion of Hilchos Lashon Hara. I had and have no such hidden 
agenda. I try BE"H to live my own life in accordance with halacha 
(still got a long way to go, but trying all the same) and to me that 
means framing issues in halachic terms before thinking of them in 
other terms. I had not even thought of the other incident(s), which 
occurred after I left the US, and of which I had only heard on the 
internet (and even then very little).

If
> it is forbidden to insult an individual, particularly in a public
> fashion - even if we disagree with his ideas (unless he has openly
> dissociated himself from torah and mitzvot), then such action is a
> denigration of the perpetrator, and repeating such statements should
> fall within the rubric of loshon ha'ra.  Not to mention that repeating
> the public insult should be loshon ha'ra with respect to the victim.  It
> should make little difference that the insult is already in the public
> domain.  If the insult was not permissible then neither is its
> repetition.  

I agree. (Not netiquette, but since I am apparently the person Reb 
Yitzchok has in mind, I'm going to say it anyway).

If you argue that the rosh yeshiva must have felt that it
> was acceptable, and even a "good idea" to say what he said, and we,
> therefore, have the right to repeat it. 

I think you can be melamed zchus on a talmid chacham that if he 
said something he must have thought it to be permitted. But I do 
not think that you can extend that limud zchus to go ahead and 
repeat what he said yourself, especially if deep down you believe it 
is lashon hara. Keep in mind the Chofetz Chaim's seven conditions 
I posted the other night, and ask yourself before you speak if they 
are fulfilled. That's what I think we should try to do anyway. IMHO 
much of Hilchos Lashon Hara boils down to limud zchus. If you try 
to be melamed zchus, you will speak less lashon hara.

Why, then, was there such an
> immediate reaction, with citations from the "Chofetz Chaim", when
> someone cited an article published by a prominent Rav containing private
> letters from a European posek?  

Because I tried to frame it as a halachic issue. Not whether 
releasing the letters was right or wrong in a moral or absolute 
sense (about which I don't think I have ever expressed an opinion, 
and would have difficulty expressing one because the one letter I 
saw was published on this list), but whether it was halachically 
permissible to release them. IMVHO, with all the caveats of not 
being a posek and so on, it was not. 

The author and publisher did not
> consider the letters to be a denigration of that posek and put it in the
> public domain.  

Which is why I would be melamed zchus on them that they 
thought the halacha to be other than I believe it to be. We're not 
exactly talking about an issur mefursam lakol here. This isn't R"L 
arayos or shfichus damim.

Why, then, is the citation of some of these letters an
> issue of loshon ha'ra?  Is it because some people take objection to the
> attitude expressed by that posek, and therefore consider the publication
> to be a denigration of him?  Then the same attitude should be carried
> over with respect to the "soneh Hashem" speech.

I too am uncomfortable with the inconsistency you point out. 

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

In message , gil.student@citicorp.com writes
>RC Sherer wrote:
>
>>>The reason I have a hava amina that there could even be something to the 
>previous paragraph, is that I remember as an American being shocked the first 
>time I spent Shabbos in London twenty years ago hearing that the shul (whose 
>name I no longer remember, but I think it was the Shabbos I spent in Edgeware) 
>said the tfilla for the Royal family. I don't even remember the Prime Minister 
>being mentioned.>>
>
>The American one is for the nasi umishneihu - the President and Vice 
>President.  Since when does the VP hold any power?
>
Ours includes Elizebeth the Queen Mother, Charles Prince of Wales (at
one stage it included Diana Princess of Wales, although she was then
dropped on divorce) and all the Royal family - none of these, except for
the Queen even nominally exercise any power (the Queen of course, while
being required, under the unwritten constitution to act on the advice of
her ministers, is technically the person who signs bills into law etc).

I was always told, however, that the power needed to be one of life and
death, and some people held that, given that abolition of the death
penalty in the country, it was no longer appropriate.  Others held that
powers of Royal Pardon (and possibly the in theory  right to reinstate
the death penalty - although increasingly, given the powers of Europe,
that may not be possible) was sufficient.

Shabbat Shalom

Chana


-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

Two weeks ago statements signed by Gedolei ha-Dor in Eres Yisrael
appeared in our newspapers which amount to the strongest position yet
to date against cigarette smoking. Briefly, the Gedolim said that one
is not allowed to make a habit of smoking, that anyone who is already
smoking must make every effort to stop, and that one is not permitted
to smoke in public places. These statements brought additional
questions to my mind which I would like to share with you. Of course,
I am aware that opinion may not be unanimous, but I would like to know
whether anyone has heard of any authoritative Da`at Torah that the
Gedolei Torah themselves have voiced on these matters:

1) Is a Melamed Tinoqot permitted to smoke in the presence of the
   Talmidim, even if they are in an open place (eg. outside in the
   yard) where the smoke does not directly affect them, or would this
   be forbidden out of concern that they might follow his example and
   learn to smoke later on when they grow up?

2) Are Ba`alei Ulamei Semahot (banquet hall owners) absolutely
   required to prevent anyone from smoking in the hall? Must the owner
   request the agreement of every Ba`al Simha to enforce the ban on 
   smoking and remove anyone smoking from the premises? What other 
   measures must be taken to enforce the ban on smoking in public 
   places which the Rabbanim have declared?

2) Can a wife sue her husband in a Beit Din to stop smoking on the
   grounds that he is like those whom Haza"l listed as Dinam Yosi
   we-Yiten Ketuba, such as Mesaref Nehoshet (coppersmith) or Ba`al 
   Polipos (Reah ha-Pe, bad odor), because it is dangerous for her to 
   inhale the smoke?

3) Can one prevent his son from smoking at home, or from bringing
   friends who smoke?

4) Is it forbidden to sell cigarettes? Should one avoid patronizing a
   store where cigarettes are sold because it is Mesayyea` bi-Dei
   `Ovrei `Avera? Should Rabbanim come out with an all-out Issur, or
   is there grounds for concern that those who still smoke would go to
   less reputable places to buy cigarettes if they were not available
   in areas where Benei Torah live?

5) What should be done for the upcoming day of Purim, when up to now
   even small children are found smoking cigarettes which they receive
   from friends or even their own parents H"W? Is one required to stop
   this by every possible means? If one simply takes cigarettes away
   from children whom he chances to meet, is this Gezel, or are
   cigarettes Biyad Qatan Hefqer Beit Din? Should Rabbanim send
   letters to Rashei Yeshivot and Menahalei Talmudei Torah instructing
   them to warn Talmidim and their parents that strict disciplinary
   measures will be taken against anyone found smoking on Purim, and
   also to warn Ra"mim and Melamedim that they too will be disciplined 
   if they allow Talmidim to smoke when visiting them while bringing 
   Mishloah Manot?

In general, is there any organized initiative among Benei Torah to
make the `Olam ha-Torah a smoke-free environment?

-- 
Shaul Wallach                           E-Mail: wallach@mail.biu.ac.il

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


[ 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         ]