Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 017

Thursday, May 6 2004

• RE: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Shutfus and Shituf
• RE: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: When is a Mechitzah Necessary?
• Hot water on Shabbos
• hatred vs lifne iver
• Re: Yom HaShoah: New Insight
• Re: Yom HaShoah: New Insight
• Re: Limmud or Ma'aseh?: V'hogisoh Boh Yomom Voloiloh
• Gaza is Israel?
• RE: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C synagogue
• Re: Entering a C synagogue
• Re: Gaza is Israel?
• Re: Gaza is Israel?
• Re: Yom HaShoah: New Insight
• Re: hatred vs lifne iver
• RE: Entering a C Synagogue
• Re: Entering a C synagogue
• RE: Entering a C Synagogue
• Kivrei Tzaddikim

R' Avi Burstein asked <<< How do the above examples reconcile with the
oft-declared notion that "we don't change halacha just because its
inconvenient, or it annoys some people, or because we care what people
think, etc."? >>>

From my perspective, it's all semantics. You view it as a change to
halacha, but I see it as a question of which of two conflicting halachos
overrides the other, or whether this situation is even covered by that
halacha to begin with. The halacha itself doesn't change.

Well, not recently, at least. One could argue that the halacha changed
when they instituted to say Birkas Hamazon on just a kezayis, even if one
wasn't satisfied. Or when they decreed not to handle a pen on Shabbos,
even when not writing with it. More recently than that, I'm having
trouble coming up with examples. Is our cessation of simcha during Sefira
a new halacha, or is it just an example of a proper way of dealing with
our tzaros? I don't know.

For example, RAB refers to <<< Davening on the planes >>> --- There are
several ways to take this, none of which involving changing halacha. Most
simply, the situations have changed; what used to be a simple matter, now
has a serious possibility of becoming a Chillul Hashem. The details of
what has changed has been discussed elsewhere, but my point is that it's
not the halacha which changed, but society.

In another example, RAB asks <<< doesn't the Conservative psak about
driving to shul really just say that after balancing the halachic
considerations, driving would be allowed in some situations? >>> --- Yes,
exactly. I believe most listmembers would agree that driving would be
allowed in some situations, and in fact some of us actually have driven
on Shabbos, such as to a hospital or doctor, or while on a military
action. The only disagreement is how high to set the bar, i.e., how much
weight to give to each of these considerations.

RAB wrote <<< Admittedly, this isn't entirely new, as we see the gemara
speaks about such things, as in the instance of a person not having to
take off passul tzitzis in the street due to him being embarrassed, but I
have rarely heard such intangible factors seriously taken into
consideration to the point that they outweigh a clear issur or chiyuv.

It seems to me that the embarrassment of taking the tzitzis off is not
much different than the <<< intangible factors >>> of the other examples
given. 
I think that despite your claim have heard such things only "rarely",
you've actually heard about them quite a bit. So much so that you are so
bothered that you sent in a post with six starred examples. The main
problem is that you're not yet used to thinking along these lines, *not*
that this approach is a new one. It's just new to some of us, but that
will go away as one sees more and more examples of it.

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

At Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:20:42 EDT, R'n T613K@aol.com stated the following:
>It has already been pointed out by one of our learned chaverim that the
>correct term for Xian theology is "shituf" so the title of this thread
>needs to be changed. ("Shutfus" is a business partnership.)

This is a good point . . . almost.  There is no Hebrew word "Shutfus" that 
I know of.  Shutafuth, with qamatz tav after the shin, means any sort of 
partnership.

~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
mailto:laser@ieee.org

>> I heard (I believe in the name of R' Henoch Leibowitz) that on
>> shabbos, Hatzalah members may drive the emergency vehicles back to the
>> garage (even when there are others available) because if they believe
>> they'll have to shlep back on foot, they initially may not be as
>> responsive as they should be.

> That's a straight halacha derived from the eidim of the molad who 
> come on Shabbos in Mes. Rosh HaShanna.

Even more directly: OC 329:9 states that all who go out "l'hatzil" may
return carrying their weapons, instead of being required to leave them
to avoid carrying, and as the MB explains, it is to prevent their not
desiring to go out to rescue in the future.

EMT

> It is assur to
> daven there, but not because it lacks a mechitza.

Let's assume that the same house of worship has a "mechitza minyan"
which happens to be where you daven. Same answer?

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

In  Avodah V13 #16 dated 5/3/04 
> Some years ago we were invited to a family bar mitzvah which was to take
> place in a C synagogue. I asked XXX zt'l what I should do. He said
> (paraphrased) you know that I am a big believer in sholem bayit, this
> also applies to sholem mishpacha. You should go, daven before and make
> certain that they do not offer any and surely do not accept any kibudim.

I do not remember who wrote this, but I know that my father zt'l would
have disagreed with this "psak" very vehemently. He would have considered
it a total sheker to give the members of the C congregation the impression
you were davening there, and he would definitely have considered it
assur to be there during their services, to be sitting in mixed pews with
their congregants, to have one of their prayerbooks open in front of you,
or to do anything at all that would give the C congregants or G-d above
the impression that you, a visible Orthodox Jew, accepted their rabbi
or their services or their house of worship one tiny bit.

He would have considered it an aveirah done befarhesya and a chillul
Hashem. He would never permit an open aveirah or a chillul Hashem for
the sake of sholom bayis.

What he did used to do in such situations is walk the person through
exactly what to say and do to minimize hurt feelings. He would advise
visiting the relative at home, inviting him to your home, giving a
nice present, writing a nice note, doing everything possible to explain
your position as tactfully and as lovingly as possible, treating your
relatives with consideration, kindness and love, maintaining a kesher
in every possible way--but never would he advise deception, dissembling
or chillul Hashem.

He would write the person a script, exactly what to say and do, and
would follow up with further conversations to make sure that things had
been smoothed over as much as possible and that family harmony had been
maintained to the greatest degree possible without actually transgressing
the Torah.

The approach of maximum tact, love, courtesy and consideration was his
general approach to issues involving BT children and their non-frum
parents, as well. Sholom bayis does not trump halacha, but it always
remains very high on a Jew's list of priorities. In the end, if your
kavana is leshem Shomayim, family members respect you and appreciate your
integrity and your principles. Providing that you avoid using harsh and
disrespectful language to your parents or other relatives, it is rare
indeed for adherence to Torah to cause any permanent rift in families.

Omer Day 27
 -Toby Katz

> I think he thinks it's amazing, because its just so open ended.  For
> example, what's the difference b/w this and me shaking a 
> female's hand?
> i.e. if they don't know, wouldn't the same lifnei iver of sinas chinam
> apply?

We had this discussion about shaking a female's hand a while back, after
the NY Times Ethicist article about this (suggesting that it was immoral,
and therefore appropriate to boycott those who refuse to shake hands) -
and at the time, it was quite clear that among those poskim who don't in
general permit shaking hands lecatchilla, many (albeit not all) permit it
bdiavad precisely on this sinat chinam issue - eg, if the woman extends
her hand, you may shake it. The fact that this is viewed as an amazing
chiddush is itself amazing...

(I would add that the original person in the article refusing to shake
hands has caused more than sinat chinam - but may have lost some people
their jobs)

Meir Shinnar

On 3 May 2004 at 13:07, Shaya Potter wrote:
> I meant for me in practice, and perhaps being a kohein it practicality
> as well, as almost all mosques (except perhaps Har Habayit) where we'd
> pray are near kvarot.

Why wouldn't you just assume that the kvaros under a mosque are those 
of goyim and therefore not m'tamei? 

-- Carl

On 30 Apr 2004 at 10:00, Shaya Potter wrote:
> I think he thinks it's amazing, because its just so open ended.  For
> example, what's the difference b/w this and me shaking a female's
> hand? i.e. if they don't know, wouldn't the same lifnei iver of sinas
> chinam apply?

I don't know if RSZA held this way, but his talmid, R. Avigdor 
Nebenzahl, told my chavrusa and me when were in Yeshiva that if a 
woman proferred her hand to shake, you were allowed to shake it 
rather than embarrass her by refusing to do so. 

-- 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. 

On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 09:14 +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
> On 3 May 2004 at 13:07, Shaya Potter wrote:

>> I meant for me in practice, and perhaps being a kohein it practicality
>> as well, as almost all mosques (except perhaps Har Habayit) where we'd
>> pray are near kvarot.

> Why wouldn't you just assume that the kvaros under a mosque are those 
> of goyim and therefore not m'tamei? 

"all the mosques that we'd pray", i.e. places we'd want to pray at.
Kever Yosef, Ma'aarat Ha'machpeilah, Kever Rachel....

On 4 May 2004 at 8:33, Shaya Potter wrote:
> "all the mosques that we'd pray", i.e. places we'd want to pray at.
> Kever Yosef, Ma'aarat Ha'machpeilah, Kever Rachel....

But don't we hold that kivrei tzadikim aren't m'tamei?

I never heard before that Kohanim don't go to Kever Rachel, etc.

-- Carl

Carl M. Sherer, Adv. Zell, Goldberg & Co.
Telephone 972-2-571-5030 Fax 972-2-571-5031 eFax (US) 1-253-423-1459

On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 16:21 +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
> But don't we hold that kivrei tzadikim aren't m'tamei?
> I never heard before that Kohanim don't go to Kever Rachel, etc.

yes, but I've never met a kohein who actually practiced by it (though
i know there are). In KBY they when we went on tiulim, none of us went
into the kvarot.

perhaps I'm doing wrong and missing out.

>> Davening in a mosque is a practical issue if the mosque over Ma'aras
>> haMachpeilah qualifies.

>I meant for me in practice, and perhaps being a kohein it practicality
>as well, as almost all mosques (except perhaps Har Habayit) where we'd
>pray are near kvarot.

The interesting point here is that there is no issue of kohanim entering 
ma`arat hamakhpela.  Why not?

=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:laser@ieee.org

I wrote about a shul at a nursing home, about which I heard a psak
that <<< the shul counts as a *private* gathering, which requires only
separate seating, and does not require any mechitza at all, so the low
mechitza which they had was more than enough.>>>

R' Gil Student asked <<< I find this highly surprising. Many poskim
consider separate seating to be de'oraisa and a mechitzah to be derabbanan
or a strong minhag. But RMF rejects those positions and holds that
mechitzah is de'oraisa.>>>

It could be argued that RGS's comments refer only to a *public*. Are you
sure that Rav Moshe would hold mechitza to be d'Oraisa even in a *private*
shul, such as the one in my case? My source said that he would not.

Akiva Miller

I proposed that
: Opening the hot water tap
: A) allows cold water into the hot water storage tank
: B) with modern tank design this does not mix with the HW in the tank so
: there's no bishul of the cold water going in

And R Micha responded and similarly R'Joel
> I do not believe (B) is correct. AFAIK, Machon Zomet went out of its
> way to design a heater that avoids such mixing.

> If you didn't have the push of the cold water entering the tank, how
> would there be any pressure within the tank to get the water to your tap?

Here's the situation I had in mind.
Tanks are designed with baffles as in the muffler of a car. This prevents
the cold water when entering at the bottom from mixing with the hot water
higher up. Hot water tanks are designed with this in mind for the sake
of efficiency and economy .

It should be noted that there is a tank that boasts of having a 300
litre capacity when in fact it only holds 200 litres. This is achieved
by heating the water in the tank far in excess of the desired delivery
temp and mixing the hot water with cold water as it leaves the tank.
This is would seem to be a problem for Shabbos. Same if one opens the
hot and cold water taps simultaneously with the water exiting from the
same faucet. I suppose we would also need to consider the question of
the cold water in the pipes being heated.

meir

RSP:
>For example, what's the difference b/w this [giving food to one who
>doesn't make a bracha] and me shaking a female's hand?
>i.e. if they don't know, wouldn't the same lifnei iver of sinas chinam
>apply?

The difference is that giving food is not intrinsically forbidden
[adirabba]. Only if the recipient misuses the food as an opportunity
to sin is it forbidden. RSZA claims that if not giving the food is
misused as an opportunity for a bigger sin[hatred] on the part of the
non-recipient, then, one returns to the starting point that giving the
food is encouraged.

You are correct that not shaking hands can be misused as an opportunity
for hatred. Yet, if shaking hands is intrinsically a sin, a lav min
haTorah kfi pashtus divrei HaRambam, obviously this cannot be permitted
to save another Jew from the less severe lav of lo sisna, hatred, (see
Shaarei Tshuva dRabbeinu Yonah that distinguishes between the severity
of a lav sheyaesh bo maaseh llav she ain bo maaseh.)

Shlomo Goldstein

Rabbi Yosef Bechhofer wrote <<< ... it struck me that it is inherently
non-Jewish to set a formal day to mourn the dead. It is forbidden, and
demonstrates a lack of emunah, to focus time and again on the tragedy
of death, ... We have no days in our calendar to remember the dead and
mourn ...>>>

What about fasting on a yahrzeit? I grant that this is not on the
calendar, it is not a *public* mourning, but it *is* a private mourning,
no? Would that be enough to argue that this aspect of Yom HaShoa does
not render it non-Jewish? Or am I misunderstanding something?

Akiva Miller

At 02:14 AM 5/4/2004, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
>On 3 May 2004 at 10:22, Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M.  wrote:
>> I realized this morning - it was in conjunction with a sadness about
>> yesterday's pigu'a in Azza that it struck me that it is inherently
>> non-Jewish to set a formal day to mourn the dead. It is forbidden, and
>> demonstrates a lack of emunah, to focus time and again on the tragedy
>> of death, and this is demonstrable from numerous ma'amarei Chazal.

>How do you explain fasting and hespedim on Yahrtzeit's? (Intuitively,
>I believe that what you wrote is correct, but our behavior with
>respect to Yahrtzeit strikes me as inconsistent with it).

I responded to a similar inquiry yesterday:

1. It has no source in Chazal, it is pure minhag.

2. It is not inherently mournful, as is evident from the Chassidic
observance thereof.

I looked this morning at the Ta'amei HaMinhagim and saw that a yahrzeit
is observed on the assumption that the deceased has a new din on that
day every year as he or she goes up a madreigah (illui neshama). It
is therefore appropriate for a child to daven for the parent on this
day. It seems that this relates specifically to descendants (it is
explained there that the aliyah begins the Shabbos before, which is why
they take the maftir etc.). OTOH, since for a tzaddik (and I imagine
this applies to kedoshim as well), since their death is a joy for them,
it is customary (I guess for anyone other than his children) to make a
hilulah for them. See p. 477 and forward.

YGB 

[Micha:]
> To help separate the issues, here's a list of different cases:

> 1- The circus: Raises issues because it's a circus.
...
> My own opinion on each:
> 1- I don't see the connection between a modern circus and chazal's circus
> other than the name. It's not a Roman circus minus certain elements --
> it's a totally different form of entertainment. So, it's reduced to #2.

Perhaps you or others addressed this, but I've yet to see it, what about
MB and IM?

RJB:
>I was unaware until yesterday that there were Jewish cemetaries in the
>Gaza Strip (someone in shul had mentioned that bodies would need to be
>reinterred in Israel). Yoreh Deah 363:1 permits "pinui ha'met" "k'dei
>l'kovro b'eretz yisrael". What is the halachic status of Kush Katif ?

In R' Chaim Kaniefsky's Derech Emunah Book 2 at the beginning of his
peirush on the Rambam's hilchos Trumos he discusses the issue of Azza.
Presumably this is Gaza City in the northern tip of the Gaza Strip.
RCK claims that the Rambam views all points south of Ashkelon,
explicitly including Azza, as chutz la'aretz. Yet, he continues, many
Rishonim argue. He brings many statements of Chazal with conflicting
views concerning Azza. He concludes with a map which has a southern
border of Eretz Yisrael where Nachal Mitzraim is identified as Al-Arish.
This would include Gush Katif, at the southern end of the Gaza Strip,
as being Eretz Yisroel. He mailed a copy of this map to HoRav Elyashiv
who was NOT in agreement with RCK's conclusions as being decisive.

Shlomo Goldstein

>> I meant for me in practice, and perhaps being a kohein it practicality 
>> as well, as almost all mosques (except perhaps Har Habayit) where we'd 
>> pray are near kvarot.

> Why wouldn't you just assume that the kvaros under a mosque 
> are those 
> of goyim and therefore not m'tamei? 

You can't assume that at the kever of Shmuel HaNavi, and Machpeila, both
of which are technically under mosques.

[Email #2. -mi]

>> "all the mosques that we'd pray", i.e. places we'd want to pray at. 
>> Kever Yosef, Ma'aarat Ha'machpeilah, Kever Rachel....

> But don't we hold that kivrei tzadikim aren't m'tamei?
> I never heard before that Kohanim don't go to Kever Rachel, etc.

My husband was told by our Rav not to go to any of these places.

 --Rena 

Steve Brizel wrote:
>Let's assume that the same house of worship has a
>"mechitza minyan" which happens to be where you
>daven. Same answer?

I was asked precisely this question on Rosh HaShanah. I didn't give a
straight answer but mentioned that it is probably assur if for no other
reason than mar'is ayin.

[Email #2. -mi]

Shaya Potter wrote:
>I've been told one can daven in a mosque...

That's interesting because the Tzitz Eliezer (1:14:91) holds that it is
assur to enter a mosque.

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:48:55PM -0400, Gil Student wrote:
: Steve Brizel wrote:
: >Let's assume that the same house of worship has a
: >"mechitza minyan" which happens to be where you
: >daven. Same answer?

: I was asked precisely this question on Rosh HaShanah. I didn't give a
: straight answer but mentioned that it is probably assur if for no other
: reason than mar'is ayin.

Rav Dovid Lifshitz pasqened similarly. The shul I belonged to, whose
rav was also a talmid of RDL's, was undergoing construction. During
the period, they rented space from a C synagogue. I asked the LOR if I
could ask RDL directly for the reasoning.

RDL's grounds lehaqeil were on the condition that we'd use a side door
with a sign denoting the name and separate identity of our shul.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 28th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        4 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Netzach: What role does domination or
Fax: (413) 403-9905      taking control play in building brotherhood?

> RCK claims that the Rambam views all points south of Ashkelon,
> explicitly including Azza, as chutz la'aretz.

outside the 'ole mitsrayim conquest and thus not holy ground for some
mitswah purpuses, not outside the commandment to conquer and settle.

/dw

On 4 May 2004 at 9:32, S Goldstein wrote:
> In R' Chaim Kaniefsky's Derech Emunah Book 2 at the beginning of his
> peirush on the Rambam's hilchos Trumos....
>                        He concludes with a map which has a southern
> border of Eretz Yisrael where Nachal Mitzraim is identified as Al-Arish.
> This would include Gush Katif, at the southern end of the Gaza Strip,
> as being Eretz Yisroel....

This is actually one of the arguments over Shmitta here. AIUI, the
Badatz EH holds that Gaza is chutz la'aretz and therefore uses produce
grown there during Shmitta. Rabbanut Yerushalayim holds Gaza is EY,
and therefore does not use produce grown there (except - IIRC - for Gush
Katif produce that is not grown in the ground).

 - 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. 

In a message dated 05/04/2004 3:08:29 PM EDT, rygb@aishdas.org writes:
>>How do you explain fasting and hespedim on Yahrtzeit's? ...

> I responded to a similar inquiry yesterday:

> 1. It has no source in Chazal, it is pure minhag.

I always assumed the true makor was shevuot 20a which mentions one who
takes a neder not to eat meat/wine "cyom shmet bo aviv"

KT
Joel Rich

On 4 May 2004 at 10:04, S Goldstein wrote:
> Yet, if shaking hands is intrinsically a sin, a lav min
> haTorah kfi pashtus divrei HaRambam, 

Lav min ha'Torah? I would think only if it was b'derech chiba.

 - Carl

On 4 May 2004 at 22:34, Mishpachat Freedenberg wrote:
>> But don't we hold that kivrei tzadikim aren't m'tamei?
>> I never heard before that Kohanim don't go to Kever Rachel, etc.

> My husband was told by our Rav not to go to any of these places.

Why? The Gemara seems pretty clear that Kivrei Tzadikim (and while 
it's not clear who is a tzadik, the Avos were clearly intended to be 
included in that phrase) are not m'tamei.  

 - Carl

On 4 May 2004 at 21:15, Micha Berger wrote:
> Rav Dovid Lifshitz pasqened similarly. The shul I belonged to, whose
> rav was also a talmid of RDL's, was undergoing construction. During
> the period, they rented space from a C synagogue....
> RDL's grounds lehaqeil were on the condition that we'd use a side door
> with a sign denoting the name and separate identity of our shul.

There is an O shul in Boston that was davening in a church for a 
couple of years. I don't know the details of who permitted it, but if 
anyone else does, please post. 

 - Carl

> Why? The Gemara seems pretty clear that Kivrei Tzadikim (and while 
> it's not clear who is a tzadik, the Avos were clearly intended to be 
> included in that phrase) are not m'tamei.  

I'll ask him what the reasoning was. I wasn't there when he asked the
shailah.

 --Rena 

Carl wrote:
>The Gemara seems pretty clear that Kivrei Tzadikim (and while
>it's not clear who is a tzadik, the Avos were clearly intended to
>be included in that phrase) are not m'tamei.

It is not clear at all in the Gemara, and most
poskim do not hold like that. See Tosafos, Kesuvos 103b
(<http://www.e-daf.com/Kesuvos/103b.gif>) and, more recently, Minchas
Elazar 3:64 (<http://www.aishdas.org/torahnet/cgi-bin/jump.cgi?ID=1026>).

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

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


[ 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         ]