Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 040

Tuesday, May 28 2002

• RE: birth control
• Re: birth control
• tfillin)
• RE: Waiting to daven maariv on Shavuos
• Re: z"l vs a"h
• RE: Vague thoughts on Chap. 2 of the Moreh
• Re: Problem in scientific *metziut* re: an Issur melacha on Shabbat
• To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group
• Re: Areivim Digest V9 #239
• Re: Waiting to daven maariv on Shavuos
• Re: Tikkun Leil Shavuos - learn all about it !
• Tiqoun Leil Shabou'ot
• birth control
• Re: birth control
• Re: Problem in scientific *metziut* re: an Issur melacha on Shabbat
• Fw: For Seth
• Winging it about Kanaf
• Re: What HaShem Said to Moishe Rabbenu
• Torah min hashomayim
• Re: is this movement halachic?
• Birchos hashachar
• Re women being Oleh LeTorah
• Re: RY Emden - Woman being Oyleh Letorah

On 24 May 2002 at 17:44, Feldman, Mark wrote:
> 1.  Essentially the issue is the hagdarah of the rabbinic mitzvah of
> "l'erev al tanach yadecha" ...
> If the mitzvah is really a minhag derech eretz or a mitzvah d'rabbanan
> k'tzas, it makes sense that one should not have sacrifice his
> financial well-being to fulfill it.  As I recall, even for a mitzvas
> aseh d'oraisa, one need not spend more than 20% of his property, kal
> v'chomer here.  In the tshuvah, Rav Henkin specifically permitted
> using birth control in a situation where a family had 9 children and
> if they had more, they would have financial difficulties (also, the
> husband was nervous about having an unhealthy child).

I think there were a lot more grounds for heter there than "the 
husband was nervous about having an unhealthy child" and "economic 
issues." This was a case where the husband already had nine children 
(and where both spouses may well have been - and it sounds like they 
were - over 40). I would be VERY wary of reading that as a blanket 
heter to stop having children for someone in their early 30's with 3-
4 children who's afraid they will have difficulties with parnassa if 
they have more children. Note that Rav Henkin specifically refers to 
the husband having been mikayem "ad akara yalda shiva." 

> BTW, if it's derech eretz, then R Seth Mandel's point makes sense: If
> you're not supposed to have children during times of famine because of
> derech eretz, even if the point is that you are supposed to share the
> tzaar of others, this may still show that it's derech eretz not to
> have children you cannot afford. (Reminiscent of "hanheg bahem minhag
> derech eretz"--to work in addition to learning.)

I answered this point on Areivim this morning. See the Gemara in 
Taanis 11a regarding Yosef (which was whom I had in mind - not 
Elimelech) and see Tosfos there s"v Assur l'Shamesh. From there it's 
mashma that not being meshamesh b'shnei ra'avon is midas chasidus. 

> 2.  A second idea is that one may use birth control to put space
> between children after one has fulfilled pru urvu.  See Birkei Yosef
> (Even haEzer 1:2) who says that pru urvu requires constant trying,
> while l'erev al tanach yadecha doesn't require that, only that you do
> not abandon having children entirely.  

I didn't argue otherwise. That was what I meant when I said that you 
don't have to stop your wife from nursing so she can get pregnant 
again. Aderaba - I heard from a posek who got that shaila and told 
the husband he should let his wife keep nursing (and that may have 
even been in a case where they had not fulfilled pirya v'rivya - I 
don't recall). 

Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin
> (grandfather of RYHH, who in the tshuva calls him "mori zekeini")
> apparently allowed 4 to 5 years between children (among other reasons,
> for the sake of proper chinuch of the child. (Sorry, that's not in the
> tshuvah I faxed, just in the miluim in the back.)

It's in the tshuva in the sefer (I didn't look at what you just 
faxed). It bears pointing out, however, that Rav Y.E. Henkin (senior) 
was matir 4-5 years only after the couple (the husband) were m'kayem 
pirya v'rivya. If that hasn't happened yet, Rav Y. H. Henkin (in the 
Bnei Banim) is only matir two years (presumably from birth of one 
child to conception of the next) like the din of meinika. And again, 
there's plenty of room to be mechalek between waiting between 
children and stopping altogether. Stopping altogether is a totally 
different ballgame, and I question if Rav Henkin himself would be 
matir for someone in their early 30's with 3-4 children and where 
both spouses are in good physical and emotional health to stop having 
children altogether (and obviously, he would have to have a specific 
shaila before paskening...). 

>> If that's the case, why not say that you have to make that
>> accounting l'chatchila and not take a job in a low paying field? By
>> your logic, what justification is there for someone taking a job as
>> a teacher or a social worker? No. Jews aren't expected to do
>> accountings like that. Parnassa is fixed from Rosh HaShanna to Rosh
>> HaShanna (except what you spend on Shabbos and Yom Tov). The reason
>> we say Parshas HaMan every day after davening is to acknowledge
>> Hashem's control over the world and His ability to give us parnassa
>> regardless of our hishtadlus. Hishtadlus itself (AIUI) is so that
>> you're not being somech al ha'neis. 

> That's Rav Dessler's shitah.  

Huh? You're trying to argue that only Rav Dessler holds that parnassa 
is hashgacha once you've put in the effort? 

>                                  The Rambam would say that there is a
> direct relationship between your hishtadlus and the result, just that
> you need Hashem's blessing (im Hashem lo yivneh ir, shav amlu bonav
> bo).  So if you know that your salary is $XX,000 and each child costs
> $X,000 for each child's education, clothes etc (at a low standard of
> living, meat only for Shabbos, etc.), you shouldn't undertake
> financial obligations which b'drech hateva you can't afford.

Except that the Rambam is the one who says that it's a mitzva 
l'hamshich lifros v'lirbos as long as he has the koach (no issues of 
parnassa there). 

I note that you did not answer my question with respect to low paying 
occupations. Should I assume that you hold that nebech if someone 
became a teacher or a social worker, they are not allowed to have 
more children than necessary for them to fulfill pirya v'rivya 
because they won't be able to pay tuitions? 

> > [Carl:] I think those relate to general mazal (and whom you marry)
> > and not to parnassa from year to year. 

> See Moed Katan 28a: Rava said that banai, chayai and mezonai...b'mazla
> talya milsa.

That doesn't mean that they cannot change from year to year. I'm also 
not sure what you're getting at here. 

> [Carl, talking about my comparison between affording having more children and
> affording to make aliyah:] 
>> But there are a couple of major differences there. Making aliya is
>> (according to most poskim) a mitzva kiyumis and not a chiyuv. Pru
>> u'rvu is a chiyuv. And while you're mekayem the mitzva with a son
>> and a daughter or with two sons, there's still an issur of hotzoas
>> zera l'batala, which is the reason (AIUI) why you have to get a
>> heter for birth control in the first place. Not to mention "ba'erev
>> al tanach yadecha" as noted above.

> We are talking about one who has fulfilled pru urvu.  According Ramban
> that l'erev al tanach yadecha is derech eretz, that would seem to be
> less important than a mitzvah kiyumis.  

I don't know where you get that from. The Ramban says "ain kofin v'lo 
korin avaryana l'mi she'lo rotzeh la'asok ba." It's still at least a 
mitzva kiyumis l'shitas ha'Ramban. We aren't kofeh on going on aliya 
or on tzitzis either. 

> As to hotzoas zera lvatalah: that is only an issue if you try to do
> birth control in a way which interferes with the zera entering the
> uterus (BTW, even there, it's a machlokes--see R. David Feldman's
> book).  If you use the pill, there is definitely no HZL.  See Igros
> Moshe EhE 4:72 os 2.

The posek we ("we" being my wife and I) discussed the pill with held 
it was sakana to use it. I try to make a habit of not re-asking 
shailas. It has enabled me to maintain certain American kulos that 
most Israelis do not accept. v'Ain kan makom l'haarich. 

-- Carl

On 23 May 2002 at 22:40, RaphaelIsaacs@aol.com wrote:
> I have been told by one Chareidi rov in the States that Israeli
> Chareidi Poskim see the issue very differently, hence the statement
> that "it's total news" to many Israelis that there are numberous
> heteirim.

SOME Israeli charedi poskim see it differently (one in particular is 
known to almost never give a heter). However, many other Charedi 
rabbonim will give a heter. 

Note that what I questioned was the availability of a heter based 
solely upon financial considerations. I was not questioning the 
availability of heterim based upon such things as illness R"L, a 
wife/mother who is nursing, or even a mother whose age indicates a 
high chance of genetic defects R"L. 

Having said that, it is also the case that many Israeli charedim (non-
poskim) are reluctant to even ask the question. I was astounded 
several years ago, when I was in a chazora shiur for Hilchos Nida by 
a Charedi posek and he announced that "there are heterim and you 
should ask the shaila if you need to." That seemed (to me at least) 
to be self-understood. 

-- Carl

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

I remember learning that the tfillin of a niftar must be checked before their 
used again but I can't find a  source.Does this sound familiar to anyone?

KT
joel

From: Chaim G Steinmetz [mailto:cgsteinmetz@juno.com]
> See Hamek Dovor (netziv) Emor 23:21 who feels (based on the posuk)
> that there in no din of Tosfos YT on Shovuos. See also Meshech Chochmoh on
> that posuk.

> In the earlier sources of this din, only kiddush is mentioned (Shu"t
> Masaas Binyomin, S'hlo, Pri Chodosh). VAKML.

I wonder whether the Haamek davar felt required to say his pshat because
he thought that the din is that one must wait to daven until tzeis
on Shavuos. If the din is merely to wait to make kiddush, there is no
connection between that and Tosefes YT, or is there?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

R' Joel Rich wrote: <<< I was recently told by 2 Rabbis that z"l is
traditionally used for men and a"h for women. >>>

R' Gil Student asked <<< What about the popular phrases David HaMelech
alav hashalom (DHA"H) and Moshe Rabbeinu alav hashalom (MRA"H)? >>>

Davar hashlishi hamachria: The criteria is not whether the person is male
or female, but whether the person gets the title "R."!

Akiva Miller

> I saw it VERY differently.
> Before the cheit, Adam and Chava were logical beings, but not
> axiological ones. They had no desire for either good or evil. They
> logically concluded they ought to be good, and were limited only by
> their ability to determine what good was.

> After the cheit, they were saddled with to yitzros, and decisions also
> involved internal drives that they (and we) now have to choose amongst.

I understood it a bit differently. I understood that they were not limited
by their ability to determine what good was, because it was as obvious
as true/false and very clear what was good and what was not. After the
chait, we were not able to clearly identify that which was truly good from
that which just seemed good at the time due to our internalized yitzros.

---Rena

On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 03:11:00AM +0200, BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
: THE PROBLEM: as soon as we saw the SEMAG, TUR and Mechaber we said,
: "Wait ! The Chinese use urine as a fertilizer !" It took us a few days
: but we just found a dozen websites on the Internet that claim that human
: urine is the best fertilizer available with experts in agriculture claiming
: its the best thing to happen in 20 years !

The article I looked up implies that the urine isn't used immediately but
left to ferment. Fresh urine is acidic, fermented - alkaline. Razal were
referring to the fresh stuff.

Shlomoh

RJoshB wrote: The halachic requirements for studying start with: Hebrew
grammar (see: Introduction of the GRA on Shulchan Aruch ORACH CHAIM),
followed by all of Tanach (Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim) Only after one
masters Hebrew and Tanach does one start with Mishna and Gemara.

I looked at the sons' intro there. All it says there is that to be
accepted as an elite "talmid of the Gra" one is first tested on complete
bkius in all of Tanach with grammar rules.

This is NOT presented as a derech of learning for everyone. Surely
everyone should not stop their Jewish education at the 4th grade level
until they have total mastery of the material, maybe a decade later.
See Shulchan Arukh haRav Hil. Talmud Torah.

Shlomo Goldstein

>The Rambam writes in Hil Teshuvah 3:8 describing an apikores who has >no 
>share in olam haba: "ha'omer she'ein hatorah me'im Hashem, afilu >pasuk 
>echad afilu teiva achas...." What would happen if in some >generation there 
>would confusion as to the spelling of a certain word >in the torah; would 
>all the people be considered to have denied the >8th ikkar? What about the 
>discrepancy between Ashkenazim and Sefardim >as to the spelling of "dakah" 
>with an aleph or a hey?

1. The Rambam discusses "teivah achas" not "ois achas". Hashgacha has
it that there are NO discrepancies in any WORDS in Tanakh.

2. Also, the thrust of the Rambam is to negate the approach that "moshe
mipi atzmo amrah" ch"v. (As for Mishneh Toraha, see tosafos megillah 31
that nonetheless it was written beruach hakodesh). A machlokes as to the
correct spelling of a word isn't kefirah ch"v, because the machlokes
is what did moshe recieve. vekal le'havin.. [Besides, as everything,
obviously, this woulfall under the principle of "eilu ve'eilu". This
might be termed "torah shebaal peh shebetrah shebikesav"!]

3. OTOH, certainly the Rambam is refering to the CURRENT Torah as well,
as formulated in his 13 ikkarim - "shekol hatorah hametzuyah beyadainu"

Be'chavod U'bivracha
Rabbi Yosef Braun
Yeshiva Boys High School
Sydney, Australia

On Fri, 24 May 2002 17:56:40 -0400 "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
writes:
> I wonder whether the Haamek davar felt required to say his pshat because he
> thought that the din is that one must wait to daven until tzeis on Shavuos.
> If the din is merely to wait to make kiddush, there is no connection between
> that and Tosefes YT, or is there?

He does mention Maariv specifically, he also quotes the MA who mentions
Maariv.

Chaim G. Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com

In Avodah V9 #39, MBerger replied:
>: [mp] Especially if "tikkun" implies an authoritative, n'sakain version...

> I thought tikkun leil Shavu'os was about repairing the night of
> Shavu'os...probably from the kelipos created by our oversleeping at
> the actual event. And nothing to do with takkanos (which repair other
> things).

Your "probably" thought doesn't extend to "tikkun lail Hoshanah Rabbah"
(which my Sulzbach 5590 print includes with tikkun lail Shavuos), to
"tikkun chatzos," or to the more familiar (and more-recently coined?)
"tikkun ko-r'im" used by [you guessed it :-)] ko-r'im (whether or not they
ceate k'lipos with their public readings). In general, I would concur
with you that the true meaning of "tikkun" in every example but the last
relates to the Kabbalistic concept (as the t'filah prceding the learning
in my edition reads, "l'sakain keser lizair anpin"), but I, to my eternal
shame, chose the modern, non-K connoation. One quibble: I wouldn't use
the word "takkanos" in explaining the root for [the modern translation of]
"tikkun"; rather, I would (and did) use "n'sakain," hence the word I chose
in my post, "authoritative." The only similarity between an edict upon &
aimed at improving people and the effort invested by people in improving
a textual object is the shoraish -- even a m'qubal might agree to that.

All the best from
-- Michael Poppers via RIM pager

Dear Hakhamim, & talmide hakhamim,

I've been following the discussion on this subject and here is my
understanding of it.

There is a custom in to stay up on the 1st night of Shabou'ot and be
involved in Torah until dawn. This custom seems to be based upon the
Zohar (Perashat Emor 98a) which states that the original pious ones would
not sleep this night, and they toiled in Torah. The Zohar (introduction
page 8a) also says that all those who adhere to the Tiqoun this night
and rejoice with it are blessed by God.

The rabbis explain and give the reason for this custom based upon the
midrash (Shir Hashirim Rabba 1:12) which states that when Bene Yisrael
were to receive the Torah, they were all sleeping and God had to awaken
them with noise and thunder. Therefore we stay up studying this night to
make amends for our forefathers and to show how anxiously we anticipate
receiving the Torah.

{For a slightly different twist on this see the commentary of Ibn Ezra
on Shemot 19:11 and the explanation by Rabbi Haim Palacci in his Leb
Haim volume 2, chapter 180)}.



This custom is only for men and not for women (see Sod Yesharim chapter
9 by Rabbi Yosef Haim).

The custom is to study and read the Tiqoun as printed in the Qerie Mo'ed
and not to just stay up and read whatever you want.

The reading was established by the AR"I and we read the pesouqim from
the beginning and end of each perashah as well as from the Nibiim and
Ketoubim, etc... (See the HID"A in his Leb David chapter 31) In the
following generation Rabbi Efraim Panssieri (a contemporary of Rabbi
Haim Vital , student of the Ari) instituted the reading of the Idera
Raba as well.

All of our Hakhamim in the last 400+ years followed this reading without
budging from it. They could have studied gemara or posqim but chose to
follow the reading as established and laid down by those who said to
stay up and read.

If we are going to stay up and read we should follow what was instituted
as the custom not just do our own thing.

If staying up all night is going to take away from your concentration
of tefilat shahrit than you should not stay up.

The proper frame of mind, thought and concentration during prayers is
much more important. The custom to stay up and study torah is also very
important, if you can do it. Sound advice is to take a nap this year as
'Ereb Shabou'ot is Sunday. Give it a try the all night reading from the
Tiqoun is wonderful!

Rabbi ShemTob Gaguine in his Keter ShemTob on Shabou'ot brings a very
interesting incident that occurred with him when he was a dayan in Cairo
(circa 1918) and he praises the London Sepharadim who read a little at
the beginning of the night then go home to sleep and wake up refreshed
for Tefilah.

Yes, even though this custom is not mentioned by HaRambam, the Yemenite
communities have always followed it except that after they read from the
selected portions of Tanakh they read from the beginning and ending of
each tractate of mishnah.

Joseph Mosseri

I have a sefer in Hebrew on this (and related) topic called "Birchas
Banim" (Yerushalaim, 5754), 550 pages.

Chaim G. Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com

On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 01:32:35AM +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: I'm fairly sure emotionally is used as a factor. But financially?
: Parnassa is all mazal - decreed on Rosh HaShanna...

Which? Mazal -- in which case ein mazalos leYisra'el -- or decreed mi
yei'ani umi yei'ashir? I think you mean the latter.

There are limits to how much one is expected to spend on an asei.

-mi

To see an article on this from Sefer "Hishtanus Hativ'iim Bhalacha" point 
your browser to: <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/tevaChange.pdf>

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

This shaaloh was sent to me by a non-member to pass on to Reb Seth.
But I thought it would be of general interest as well.
------------
From: Moishe
To: SBA

Can you please ask RSM the following:

The word 'kanaf' is regularly translated as 'corner', but it seems from
all real sources to be incorrect. Rather, it should be something like flap
or edge. I suppose the reason it is mistranslated so often is because
we say 'al kanfei bigdeihem' and we know that tzitzis has to be on the
corner. Now that's my problem. How did Chazal deduce that tzitzis have
to be on the corner davka and not stam on the four edges of a garment?

MK

R. MK asks by way of R. SBA: <How did Chazal deduce that tzitzis have
to be on the corner davka and not stam on the four edges of a garment?>

The word kanaf is one of those words like 'ayin, kaf, af, which are
"pan-Semitic," i.e. attested in all the Semitic languages with the
same meaning. Here we have kappu in ancient Akkadian, kanaf in Arabic,
and kanaf/kanap in all the NW Semitic languages (Ugaritic, Hebrew,
Canaanite languages, and Aramaic languages). In all it means wing. Most
of the languages have derived various noun and verb forms from this
core meaning. So in Arabic it is used to mean "side, flank," and
thence to verbal forms meaning "to fence in." The Aramaic noun k'nufya
presumably has a similar history. And there are in the T'NaKh idioms
such as tahat k'nafav ye'heseh meaning to find shelter whose derivation
is also transparent from the meaning "wing."

 From wing to "flap" is a clear line, as the questioner himself notes. That
presumably also lies under the idiom "gilla k'naf aviv" etc. When applied
to a rectangular garment, however, I would say "flap" does indeed refer
to the part that flaps when you fold it or put in on, i.e. the corner. I
don't see why it has to mean the edge.

At any rate, the question is a little reversed, to my taste. Hazal did not
take a posuq and try to figure out "now what in the world could it mean."
Remember that Moshe Rabbenu gave the Torah Shebb'al Peh to B'nei Yisroel
as he received it, and the Torah Shebb'al Peh includes the practical
meaning for things like tzitzis and etrog and kanfei bigdeihem. The
mitzvah of tzitzis was given as referring to strings in the corners of the
garment, and the corners davqa d'orayso. So regardless of the loshon of
the posuq, that is what the posuq would "mean" in practical terms. And,
as I say above, I see no convincing reason to believe that kanaf would
mean the edge of cloth rather than the corner.

Seth

<< It seems to me that the gemara is clear that anyone who says that a
verse (and Rambam extends this to a word) in our Torah was not said by
G-d is someone who "despises the word of the Lord". >>

Right. But I don't know what "said" means. Nor, I imagine, did Moses. If
the truth given by HaShem at Sinai was as broad as all Torah, then it was
far too complex to be reduced to words that Moses could understand. Words
are second-rate instruments anyhow, even in the hands of the greatest
Gedolim. We're still struggling to figure out what HaShem told Moses,
and what Moses heard. What we do know is that all that HaShem revealed
to Moses was truth, and that that truth encompasses all of the law that
HaShem wished to reveal to man. We know a little, i.e., what's in Gemorrah
(what we *think* is in Gemorrah, up to the proximation allowed by our
individual intellects), and what the Sages teach us. The struggle of
Shas is to keep searching for the rest of the truth.

Believe me, this thought doesn't make me a C. I'd be kicked out of JTS
for saying something like that. OTOH, I'd probably be kicked out of most O
(M and otherwise) as well. Maybe I should form my own denomination.

David Finch

>The Rambam writes in Hil Teshuvah 3:8 describing an apikores who has >no 
>share in olam haba: "ha'omer she'ein hatorah me'im Hashem, afilu >pasuk 
>echad afilu teiva achas...." What would happen if in some >generation there 
>would confusion as to the spelling of a certain word >in the torah; would 
>all the people be considered to have denied the >8th ikkar? What about the 
>discrepancy between Ashkenazim and Sefardim >as to the spelling of "dakah" 
>with an aleph or a hey?

1. The Rambam discusses "teivah achas" not "ois achas". Hashgacha has
it that there are NO discrepancies in any WORDS in Tanakh.

2. Also, the thrust of the Rambam is to negate the approach that "Moshe
mipi atzmo amrah" ch"v. (As for the book of Mishneh Toraha, see Tosafos
Megillah 31 that, nonetheless, it was written beruach hakodesh).

A machlokes as to the correct spelling of a word isn't kefirah
ch"v, because the machlokes is what did moshe recieve. vekal
le'havin.. [Besides, as everything in Torah, obviously, this would
fall under the principle of "eilu ve'eilu". This would be no different
than the various nuscha'oth, which ,according to the Arizal, represent
different gates in Heaven. This might be termed "torah shebaal peh
shebetrah shebikesav"!]

3. OTOH, it is clear that the Rambam is refering to the CURRENT Torah
as well, as formulated in his 13 ikkarim - "shekol hatorah hametzuyah
beyadainu".

Be'chavod U'bivracha
Rabbi Yosef Braun
Yeshiva Boys High School
Sydney, Australia

R' Gil wrote: <<Except for a handful of letters, the Torah we have is
exactly that of Moshe Rabbeinu. And the letter differences do not change
pronunciation or meaning.>>

Sorry, but that statement is not quite accurate. One of the nine known
spelling differences between the Keter and Yemenite sifrei Torah and the
Ashkenazi and Sefaradi sifrei Torah does change pronunciation although
it doesn't change meaning.

Although the differences have been discussed on list in the past, I've
noticed lately that posters mention only the daka difference as if it
is the only one.

As an Ashkenazi, what annoys me is that all the evidence points to the
correctness of the Keter and Yemenite s'farim and not to the sifrei
Torah that I read from and make a b'rakha on when I get an aliya.

KT,
David

We have a beracha poke'ach ivrim. We have birchos hashevach on other
abilities, such as being able to stand straight, etc.

What about the sense of hearing?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

I recently wrote:
> ..the Mechaber 282:3 (which is really the gemoro Megilla) saying that
> women may be oyleh letorah on Shabbos - '...avol omru chachomim" that
> she shouldn't - 'mipnei k'vod hatzibur'.

> ... I recently found ...- the sefer Migdal Oz by Rav Yaakov Emden z'l...in
> a case where there is a minyan metzumtam in the home of the yoledes and
> her husband is not around, we should stick with the 'din' ['yesh lehaamid
> hadovor al hadin'] that the mother is oleh letorah!
> He explains: '...Harei befeirush omru she'oyloh, v'im lo achshov eimosai?
> Ubevadai lo yipol shum dovor midivreihem artzo shelo yehei lo mokom.....'

Thanks to RA Folger I have now seen a second pshat from RY Emden on this
Chazal (in his peirush on Mes. Megilla).
He writes in a case where the woman is the only person who can lein...she
may.
(I wonder if he is saying that where there is a tzibbur of men who all
cannot lein - there is no longer a  'kvod hatzibbur'...?)

----

In the same siman SA [282:2] the Remoh says that 'ossur likros' broysh
megulah.

The Oruch Hashulchon explains [s 10] that this means either a hat or the
tallis over the head.

I have seen in quite a few places - especially the MO-type (sorry...) that
this is not adhered to (sometimes even the rabbi).

Is this something that has not been accepted, or simple ignorance?

SBA

On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 01:51:18PM +1000, SBA wrote:
: I then asked what is the purpose of this whole statement - if ultimately
: she cannot be oleh letorah - for whatever reason? I offered our Rov's
: answer 'bederech efshar' that in a situation where there is no k'vod
: hatzibur concerns - maybe she could be oleh. (Eg - a mother at a minyan
: with her 10 sons...)

I'm still not sure your LOR is correct. It was explained to me (and
a fellow talmid tells me he thinks I got this from R' Dovid Lifshitz)
that the tzibbur can not be mochelim their kavod because it's not theirs
to be mocheil. The kavod is a function of their standing as a community
of klal Yisrael. So, even if the woman was the mother of everyone in the
minyan, perhaps the minyan must be shown kavod by her -- because she's
really showing kavod to Klal Yisrael as a whole.

: In the section where he writes about minhogim and halochos re name-giving
: for a girl, he says that in a case where there is a minyan metzumtam in
: the home of the yoledes and her husband is not around, we should stick
: with the 'din' ['yesh lehaamid hadovor al hadin'] that the mother is
: oleh letorah!

: He explains: '...Harei befeirush omru she'oyloh, v'im lo achshov eimosai?
: Ubevadai lo yipol shum dovor midivreihem artzo shelo yehei lo mokom.....'

: (I thought - this was a similar situation to what my Rov had suggested.)

Because of that, or because this tzibbur wouldn't exist had the baby not
been born?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org            It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org       and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

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


[ 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         ]