Avodah Mailing List

Volume 01 : Number 026

Sunday, August 23 1998

• Re: Psak and ratzon Hashem
• Re: Psak and ratzon Hashem, ve-la-na'raha lo ta'aseh davar
• Re: Psak and ratzon Hashem
• ones and arayos
• Re: Avodah V1 #25
• Re: Avodah V1 #24
• Fwd: Avodah V1 #2f
• Re: Avodah V1 #25
• Re: Zmanim for Ta'aniyos
• Perfect helping techniques?
• Re: Psak and ratzon Hashem
• Re: Psak and ratzon Hashem
• Re: Zmanim for Ta'aniyos
• more evidence

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 cbrown@bestware.com wrote:
>
> > I think even M"B agrees that there is a methodology of psak.When the ratzon
>
> I'm not sure he does. I suspect that is why rabbonim often preferred the
> Aruch HaShulchan. In his in/famous essay Chaim Soloveitchik describes the
> MB as intent on being yotzei kol hashittos - that is probably inaccurate,
> but it certainly does not seem like a methodology of psak. The MB is far
> more, it seems, a melaket - a forerunner of the type of sefer so popular
> today (a type I happen to like!) - not a psak-oriented work.
>

Without Sanhedrin, there is no binding authority on Klall Yisroel - unless you
are part of a coherent Kehila which has accepted a particular Rav. The difference
between the Aruch HaShulchan and the Mishna Berura reflects the fact that the
Aruch HaShulchan was a Rav while the Mishna Berura was not. The Mishna Berura was
written for a different audience.

Practically speaking the Mishna Berura was more concerned with presenting
information that was acceptable to the widest possible audience, the Aruch
HaShulchan was written to those who were willing to accept him as their posek -
or happened to agree with his analysis. Prior to World War II the Mishna Berura
was not viewed as a major halachic work - because there were many major
authorities available. After World War II there was a concerted effort by the
Chazon Ish and Rav Aaron Kotler to establish the Mishna Berura as the common
denominator of halacha for Klall Yisroel. The Aruch HaShulchan which represented
one Gadol's opinion - was not as acceptable as the Mishna Berura which was more
concerned with covering all bases.

The Ohr L'Tziyon states that as a general rule what we call psak is actually just
a strategy to minimize the likelihood of error. In other words we are actually in
doubt as to what is the correct ruling. The rav tries to cover all basis to
minimize the likelihood of error. He states that there are two exceptions to the
view that psak is the result of sofek. The first is the Shulchan Aruch because it
was accepted by Klall Yisroel and the second is the Arizal because the
information he received came from Eliyahu HaNavi. Of the course the latter
statement is not acceptable to those who have a different from of Lav BaShamayim
or held by the Gra's view of the Arizal (see Igros Moshe (O.H. 4 # 3 page 2)

The Kabbalistic view - that Psak creates the reality - is interesting, but
doesn't seem to be of much practical significance. Rabbi Mordechai Tendler told
me that when Rav Shneur Kotler was dying - people came to Rav Moshe and asked for
a psak that he would live. Rav Moshe refused.

As far as methodology - I have asked a number of Rabbonim about Klalei Psak of
the Mishna Berura. The clearest answer I got was Rav Yisroel Belsky. He said that
as far as he knew there were no official klallel psak. However, he noted that
most yeshivishe people agree as to what the Mishna Berura hold to be the
halacha.  There are exceptions to this. What is the view of the Mishna Berura
regarding listening to music Motzei Tisha B'Av when it is a Nidcheh? He states in
the Shaar HaTziyun to be Maikel. I have seen this cited that he permits music. I
have also seen this cited to prove that he prohibits music. It seems to depend
upon whether the Mishna Berura was poskening on his own (Mutar) or merely
reporting the opinion of the Pri Megadim (ossur).
A similar dispute in understanding the Mishna Berura concerns women wearing
transparent stockings. Rav Wosner says the Mishna Berura misread his sources
while Rav Moshe says the psak of the Mishna Berura was correct.

                                    Daniel Eidensohn

On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 cbrown@bestware.com wrote:

> So doesn't that resolve your question, i.e. how does idea of being choshesh
> for other definitions for reshut harabim jive with psak=ratzon hashem.  M"B
> (and others who are choshesh for everything)was not aiming for psak, he was
> melaket and is choshesh for everything - that was my point!  BTW, my
>

Agreed. The concept of Ba'al Nefesh yachmir as used by the MB is unique to
his work and the fact that it is not meant as "psak" halacha. This is,
then, a classic case of "yosif da'as yosif mach'ov" - were a person not to
know the issue and the MB and just go and ask his rabbi whether he can use
an eruv or not, there could be no theological sechar v'onesh reprecussions
against him if he went and used the eruv (l'shitasi in mis'asek). Educate
someone and let him know... :-).
 

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

This is essentially the view I was constructing as the one in opposition
to my personal perspective, which would lead, of course, to constant
theological insecurity - not irrational, however!

But, pray tell, who is the Ohr L'Tziyon?


YGB

On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

> 
> The Ohr L'Tziyon states that as a general rule what we call psak is
> actually just a strategy to minimize the likelihood of error. In other
> words we are actually in doubt as to what is the correct ruling. The rav
> tries to cover all basis to minimize the likelihood of error. He states
> that there are two exceptions to the view that psak is the result of
> sofek. The first is the Shulchan Aruch because it was accepted by Klall
> Yisroel and the second is the Arizal because the information he received
> came from Eliyahu HaNavi. Of the course the latter statement is not
> acceptable to those who have a different from of Lav BaShamayim or held
> by the Gra's view of the Arizal (see Igros Moshe (O.H. 4 # 3 page 2) 
> 



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

>
>Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 12:45:13 -0400
>From: cbrown@bestware.com
>Subject: Re: ones with chelev, ve-la-na'arah lo ta'aseh davar
>
>The na'arah is pturah, but did she engage in an act of arayot?  What 
>about
>"Karka olam"?
>
>(  I'm not saying I disagree, I'm just saying I don't think its that
>simple.  The fact that we use different terminology, "mitasek" vs. 
>"ones"
>sort of led me down this train of thought.)
>
    I believe you are confusing two entirely different ideas. THe idea of
karka olam does not take away from the fact of arayos, it merely is a
ptur of yehareg veal yaavor (that you don't have to die). There are two
definitions in the rishonim for karka olam, Rashi and Tos. learn that it
means that she does not do an action, and the Ran, Nimukei Yosef etc.
learn that her resistance is meaningless because she can be forced
anyway. Certainly according to the second p'shat it is only a p'tur in
yehareg as the Nimukei Yosef himself says clearly in Sanhedrin. BUt even
according to Rashi it still is only a p'tur in yehareg but is certainly
considered arayos as the Gem. in Bava Kamma says 32a that even though the
woman does no action still the hanaah is considered a maaseh, and see
Tos. Sanhedrin 74b d"h deha that also seems that it is only a p'tur for
yehareg but is still considered arayos.

  Also according to R' CHaim who learns in the Rambam that there is no
p'tur of Karka olam for arayos and really the woman has to die, and still
Chazal base the entire p'tur of ones on naarah meurasah.


Shraga ROthbart

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

I'd like to raise a new issue which is a fairly common occurence. I have
heard people claim that the restriction of using other people's seforim
without  permission is no longer applicable today either because a.
Seforim are not very expensive or b. THey are very accesible and
therefore people are not makpid on them. Any sources from contemporary
poskim that either confirm or refute this claim?

S ROthbart

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

In reference to the Men Are From Mars etc., series, I have been told that
these books very popular among b'nei Torah in Yerushalayim.However, I think it
should be pointed out that there has been a lot of discussion about these
books, and many professional therapists feel they are not psychologically
sound, are not much more than good money makers for the author,.and may
possibly be counter- productive. 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--part0_903851422_boundary
Content-ID: <0_903851422@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII


--part0_903851422_boundary
Content-ID: <0_903851422@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2>
Content-type: message/rfc822
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-disposition: inline

From: JoshHoff@aol.com
Return-path: <JoshHoff@aol.com>
To: avodah@aishdas.org
Subject: Re: Avodah V1 #24
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 01:46:57 EDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

In reference to the Men Are From Mars etc., series, I have been told that
these books very popular among b'nei Torah in Yerushalayim.However, I think it
should be pointed out that there has been a lot of discussion about these
books, and many professional therapists feel they are not psychologically
sound, are not much more than good money makers for the author,.and may
possibly be counter- productive. 

--part0_903851422_boundary--

I have heard something similar in the name of R' Zalman Nechemia Goldberg,
and am forwarding this message to someone who might have the access to ask
him about it.

YGB

On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, Paul Rothbart wrote:

> I'd like to raise a new issue which is a fairly common occurence. I have
> heard people claim that the restriction of using other people's seforim
> without  permission is no longer applicable today either because a.
> Seforim are not very expensive or b. THey are very accesible and
> therefore people are not makpid on them. Any sources from contemporary
> poskim that either confirm or refute this claim?
> 
> S ROthbart
> 

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

Look at Rav Moshe inside.
He says in Orach Chaim Vol. 4 siman 62 explicitly numerous times that 50 minutes
fulfills mekar hadin the shita of Rabbeinu Tam (just bnei torah should be machmir
till 72).  That in the U.S. after 50 minutes it is the equivalent darkness as it
was in Europe after 72+ minutes. (and based on the Gra every place has a diff.
zman). He therefore  says that the first 9+ minutes is bein hashmashot of the
gaonim, the next 31+ minutes is definitely night for the Gaonim and definitely day
for Rabbeinu Tam,   the next 9+ minutes is bein hashmashot of Rabbeinu Tam.
(therfore the U.S. mil is about 12.5 minutes)
For a tannit drabbanan he says 50 minutes is enough.

Therefore, what YGB said :
 "I would like to voice a pet peeve of mine that is a direct result of
misinformation on
zmanim."
is really a pet peeve of yours on informed people who follow the approach of Rav
Moshe Feinstein.

Kol Tuv,
Shraga


Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Shragai Botwinick wrote:
>
> > Doesn't Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe (I believe vol. 4 orach chaim)
> > claim that Rabbeinu Tam in America(N.Y.) is around 50 minutes - and a mil is
> > around 13 minutes.
> >
> > Kol Tuv,
> > Shraga
> >
>
> I believe R' Moshe actually says 50 minutes in the USA reflects the Ba'al
> HaTanya. I recall that he advises - for reasons I cannot grasp - waiting
> the same 50 minutes after a ta'anis d'rabbanan. I remember that he says
> that 72 minutes in America is not an adequate reflection of RT, but rather
> that a Ben Torah should be stringent in that regard because that was the
> time as kept in Europe.
>
> The 13 min. mil is something I never heard of and would put R' Moshe in
> direct contradiction with several Gemaros and all the Rishonim.
>
> YGB
>

JoshHoff@aol.com wrote:

> In reference to the Men Are From Mars etc., series, I have been told that
> these books very popular among b'nei Torah in Yerushalayim.However, I think it
> should be pointed out that there has been a lot of discussion about these
> books, and many professional therapists feel they are not psychologically
> sound, are not much more than good money makers for the author,.and may
> possibly be counter- productive.

  The above comment can be applied to psycho-analysis, behavior modification,
cognitive therapy, family therapy etc etc etc. There is no such thing as a
psychotherapy which is universally accepted by psychotherapists. Even the emphasis
on the importance of self esteem has come under attack as has the issue of the
importance of maternal bonding.

As a general rule 1) if some one needs help it is usually best to try the simplest
and least costly option before calling in  heavier guns. Men from Mars has clearly
helped many people (including frum people) and is generally consistent with Torah
Hashkofa as well as psychological research. 2) to posul proven advice without
offering at least an equivalent alternative is also problematic. I remember
hosting a family who had been brought to yiddishkeit by a well known singing
rabbi. Some of their hashkofa was "way out". I called one of the leading poskim in
Brooklyn as to how to "save" them. He replied, "Don't knock out someone supports
until you can offer something which works better for them. They are not ready to
move on - yet." Obviously this situation needs a starting place. It does not have
to be perfect. The advice I gave does work and is definitely better than no
advice.

In sum, Men from Mars is not great science, does make a lot of money for the
author, irritates many professionals - but has been successful in saving many
marriages. If anyone has better advice for where to start -  please share the
information.


                                           Daniel Eidensohn

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> This is essentially the view I was constructing as the one in opposition
> to my personal perspective, which would lead, of course, to constant
> theological insecurity - not irrational, however!
>
> But, pray tell, who is the Ohr L'Tziyon?

The Ohr L'Tzyiyon is a two volume collections of the tshuvos of the late
Gaon
and Tzadik Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul - Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Porat
Yosef. The discussion of the nature of psak is found in the introduction
to the 2nd
volume.

                                                  Daniel Eidensohn

Does this imply that up to world war II that psak meant something different
than post ww II?  What is the ultimate implication of trying to cover all the
bases- are we ultimately choshesh for every opinion ever cited?  Perhaps this
goes back to the basic question as to what is the ratzon hashem- is it the
final halachic answer we're concerned about or the halachic process that got
us there?  Perhaps  one could argue that post world war II covering all the
bases has become the major part of the halachic process but that would seem a
chiddush. 

Kol Tuv,
Joel
<<  Prior to World War II the Mishna Berura
 was not viewed as a major halachic work - because there were many major
 authorities available. After World War II there was a concerted effort by the
 Chazon Ish and Rav Aaron Kotler to establish the Mishna Berura as the common
 denominator of halacha for Klall Yisroel. The Aruch HaShulchan which
represented
 one Gadol's opinion - was not as acceptable as the Mishna Berura which was
more
 concerned with covering all bases.
 
 The Ohr L'Tziyon states that as a general rule what we call psak is actually
just
 a strategy to minimize the likelihood of error. In other words we are
actually in
 doubt as to what is the correct ruling. The rav tries to cover all basis to
 minimize the likelihood of error. He states that there are two exceptions to
the
 view that psak is the result of sofek. The first is the Shulchan Aruch
because it
 was accepted by Klall Yisroel and the second is the Arizal because the
 information he received came from Eliyahu HaNavi.  

Daniel Eidensohn

If this iss indeed the approach that R' Moshe espouses, we must regard it
the same way we regard his psak that chatzos is always 11:56 am and that
the two halves of a day are not equivalent...

It continues to be a pet peeve, and unfathomable by any standard I can
grasp, and, the way you describe it, as a direct contradiction to every
single rishon.

YGB

On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, Shragai Botwinick wrote:

> Therefore, what YGB said : 
>  "I would like to voice a pet peeve of mine that is a direct result of
> misinformation on zmanim."  is really a pet peeve of yours on informed
> people who follow the approach of Rav Moshe Feinstein. 
> 
> Kol Tuv,
> Shraga
> 
> 
> Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote: 
> 
> > On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Shragai Botwinick wrote:  > > > Doesn't Rav Moshe
> Feinstein in Igrot Moshe (I believe vol. 4 orach chaim)  > > claim that
> Rabbeinu Tam in America(N.Y.) is around 50 minutes - and a mil is > >
> around 13 minutes.  > > > > Kol Tuv, > > Shraga > > > > I believe R'
> Moshe actually says 50 minutes in the USA reflects the Ba'al > HaTanya.
> I recall that he advises - for reasons I cannot grasp - waiting > the
> same 50 minutes after a ta'anis d'rabbanan. I remember that he says >
> that 72 minutes in America is not an adequate reflection of RT, but
> rather > that a Ben Torah should be stringent in that regard because
> that was the > time as kept in Europe.  > > The 13 min. mil is something
> I never heard of and would put R' Moshe in > direct contradiction with
> several Gemaros and all the Rishonim.  > > YGB >
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

While going over lasts weeks parsha (specifically the mitzva of alias
regel) I was reminded of another of the myriad of evidence which points
to the Divinity of the Torah. The mitzva of alias regel is virtually
impossible to attribute to a human author. Who would ever ask all male
subjects throughout the entire country to meet at one place at a
predetermined and revealed time. This would naturally leave the entire
country open to attack since the cities would be occupied by only women
children and old and sick men. Only a true G-d who could guarantee the
safety of his people would make such a request. A human would never make
such a command and even if you'd argue that maybe someone did-then how can
we explain why the many enemies of Israel didn't attack during these known
festivals. Furthermore, even if we assume a human did write the Torah we
still must admit that he was trying to fool everyone into thinking that
the Torah was divine, then why would he put himself out on a limb by
making a request of his people which could back fire and reveal that his
Torah isn't divine. Rather logic dictates that we conclude that the author
of the Torah must have super power Ie. is Divine. This is evidence which
doesn't require us to believe in any events or number of people, this is
hard core internal evidence within the document under discussion. So even
those who didn't want to listen to the line of evidence provided before,
should be able to accept this evidence. Finally, this is not 100% proof,
if you want to be a lawyer and refute this evidence as well I'm sure that
everyone will find some philosophy to hide behind but as a judge this
becomes strong evidence which suggests that our mesorah is true and all
others are false.
Elie Ginsparg 

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]