Avodah Mailing List

Volume 01 : Number 045

Friday, September 11 1998

• RE: Panim Hadashot -- women
• Re: science vs. mesorah -- terefah
• strange sheva brachot
• Re: Public discussions of Arayos
• Re: Public discussions of Arayos
• Re: a heter for eating tref???
• RE: Panim Hadashot -- women
• Re: strange sheva brachot
• Re: Public discussions of Arayos
• mai chazis
• yeridas hadoros
• Re: Ein Dorshin
• Re: Aveyra Lishma
• Re: Sheva Brachos and Women
• Re: Aveyra Lishma
• Re: Sheva Brachos and Women
• Yeridas HaDoros
• Kal VaChomer

 gershon.dubin@juno.com (Gershon Dubin) asks:

>	How about ponim chadoshos-do women qualify?

yes.

Eli Clark

Eli Turkel <turkel@icase.edu> writes:

>On the other hand Rashba seems to hold differently in other teshuvot.
>Hence, it seems that he feels terefot are different from other halachot.

This is a critical distinction and I thank Eli for pointing it out.  It
is not unusual for a posek who is generally accepting of science or
medicine to disregard them when it comes to defining terefah.  It seems
clear that Hazal's authoritative list of terefot is generally viewed as
absolute and unchanging.

In a provocative "book review" in BDD (Be-khol Derakhekha Da'ehu), no.
4, a learned mathematician named Sternberg departs from this consensus.
The article, which is informative and fun to read, collects a wide range
of sources dealing with the science-mesorah tension and tries to
categorize various posekim in terms of their attitude toward science and
changes in scientific understanding.  However, in my view, the analysis
is flawed in its failure to recognize the special staus of Hazal's
terefot list.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

With regard to the strange sheva brachot mentioned by Rav Bechhofer, I don't
want to defend them, but I still don't understand why there is problem of bracha
hasmucha l'chaverta.  (I can see other problems)  After all, if it acceptable to
have a rav give a translation  between the brachot (without shem and malchut) so
the olam would understand, why is it unacceptable for someone else (ignoring the
issue that it was a woman, as that is irrelevant to the specific issue of bracha
hasmucha, and ignoring the shem and malchut - a separate issur))) to give a
translation of the bracha between the brachot for the sake of being m'sameach
chatan v'kallah, and perhaps also translate for those who didn't understand?  We
agree that hefsek only applies to the people making the brachot, and the English
is being said by other people.  Why does the motivation matter?  Furthermore,the
translation of the bracha is also clearly me'inyan habracha, so is closer to
adding piyuttim.  

Rav Bechhofer suggested that the announcement of the rav making each bracha
before each bracha is not a problem, because it is meinyana dibracha, like
asking for salt before motzi.  I thought that with regard to motzi, one is
supposed to check beforehand, but if it is not there, one is allowed to ask.
If there was really an issur of hefsek,  I would think that people would
announce before the sheva brachot the list of rabbis.   Clearly, the vast
majority of weddings make no effort to eliminate this hefsek, suggesting (to me)
that talk by people other than those making the sheva brachot may not be a
hefsek 

Meir Shinnar

> 
> From: "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
> Subject: Re: Public Discussions of Arayos
> 
> 
>   b) textual: R' Bechhoffer claims that the subject matter of
>   the discussion is inappropriate based on the mishnah of "Ein
>   Dorshin", but does not give a rationale.  Someone else cites
>   Igrot Moshe that extends the *subject* matter of "sitrei arayot"
>   to family planning and other matters.  I object to the applicability
>   of this mishnah to this discussion based on the *verb* rather than
>   the *subject*.  The Gemara, and the Rambam after it (Isurei Biah
>   22:17 et seq.) are quite explicit as to the rationale of Ein 
>   Dorshin: that if Sitrei Arayot are taught before three, one is
>   in chavrusah with the rebbe, and the other two are in chavrusah
>   with each other, and they will not hear accurately what the 
>   rebbe is saying on the matter.  It's quite clear, then, that "dorshin"
>   refers to speech, and speech only.  Jastrow agrees with this reading
>   of the verb "dorshin", translating the phrase as "you shall not 
>   lecture in..."  I submit, with all due respect to Rabbi Bechhoffer,
>   that as a *print* medium, these email lists are not relevant to Ein
>   Dorshin, any more than the oft-cited chapters in Shulchan Aruch (OH
>   240, EH 23) are relevant to Ein Dorshin.  Since the material is in
>   print, all readers can be certain that they've seen all the words
>   said by the poster.
> 
---- Having Been the "Someone else" That you refer to, allow me to note
that there is a significant difference between the relevant sections of
Shulchan Aruch and an email discussion group. The former is complete and
uncut before you, sources can be checked, continuation of study is open
before you and the chance of error is significantly reduced. However,
discussion groups that are constantly joined or left by many in the middle
of a "conversation" can clearly open the possibility for error due to
missing a point. Actually, Reb Joel Margolies made that point to me from
the post to which you refer as he pointed out that I had accidently added
titles to the name of a Talmid chacham which were to be understood. As I
had joined the list after that discussion had taken place, I was unaware.
Arayos discussions could be lost in the process too, leaving questions to
be misinterpreted as answers possibly opening us up to the Ein Dorshin
situation. (As an aside, allow me to note that the term "discussion group"
seems to lend itself to more of a Dorshin interpretation than printed text
of an individual.)

Respectfully yours,
J. Schwartz

The point about the nature of e-mail discussion groups is well-taken, but
it is a point that would be valid with respect to any halakhic subject.
So, "ma nishtana ha sicha ha zeh mikol ha sichot?"   In other words, how
can the possibility that one's understanding of arayot be tainted through
missing a key e-mail posting or not having access to the source texts be an
argument against its discussion on an e-mail list, when that same argument
can be used to censor any halakhic discussion?   If the point is valid for
matters of arayot, then it is no less valid for any other subject.

Kol tuv,

//Avi
Avram Sacks
Chicago, IL
sacksa@cch.com
achdut@enteract.com







> From: "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
> Subject: Re: Public Discussions of Arayos
>
>   b) textual: R' Bechhoffer claims that the subject matter of
>   the discussion is inappropriate based on the mishnah of "Ein
>   Dorshin", but does not give a rationale.  Someone else cites
>   Igrot Moshe that extends the *subject* matter of "sitrei arayot"
>   to family planning and other matters. [snip]

---- Having Been the "Someone else" That you refer to, allow me to note
that there is a significant difference between the relevant sections of
Shulchan Aruch and an email discussion group. The former is complete and
uncut before you, sources can be checked, continuation of study is open
before you and the chance of error is significantly reduced. However,
discussion groups that are constantly joined or left by many in the middle
of a "conversation" can clearly open the possibility for error due to
missing a point. [snip]
Respectfully yours,
J. Schwartz

On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, Eli A. Duker wrote:

> The gemara says this explicitly concerning Yom Kippur, (that achila
> gasah is pattur)On Wed, 9 Sep 1998, Cheryl Maryles wrote:
I found the gemara on 80 in yoma  but also saw that thre reason was
because yom kippur requires iynui and achilas gasa is iynui. This doesn't
answer my question by tref brcause tref is an issur achila
..so I repeat do we say that achlia gasa lo shmeh achila by tref as well
or only by mitzvos and by iynui
Elie Ginsparg

Uh, the Nimukei Yosef in Kesuvos, Pischei Teshuva EH 62:14 and Sova
Semachos 1:7 say: No.

YGB

On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

>  gershon.dubin@juno.com (Gershon Dubin) asks:
> 
> >	How about ponim chadoshos-do women qualify?
> 
> yes.
> 
> Eli Clark
> 
> 

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

On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu wrote:

> and ignoring the shem and malchut - a separate issur))) to give a

It is not a separate issur. That is what makes it a hefsek - it cannot be
mei'inyana d'bracha if it is l'vatala. I do not know where to look for
backing for this offhand, but I think it is quite a legitimate sevara, so,
as we have been saying here for several days - lama li kra, svara hu? :-)

> didn't understand?  We agree that hefsek only applies to the people
> making the brachot, and the English is being said by other people.  Why

We don't agree. According to R' Moshe and the Tzitz Eliezer, the Seder
HaBerachos as recited must retain the matbei'a of semucha l'chaveirta even
if the individual mevarchim do not.

We should note, btw, that there are many sources, including R' Tzvi Pesach
Frank, who held that the semucha l'chaveirta is essential and must be
taken into account in dividing up the berachos. Minhag Ashkenaz (us
yekkes) used to be not to split up the berachos at all, except for the
beracha acharisa, for this reason.

BTW, all this means it is a good idea, aside for derech eretz reasons, for
halachic ones, not to talk during a Chuppa!

YGB

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

Certainly true.

But there is a hierarchy of concern.

And, in our arayos rife, fixated, and dangerous society, this is one of,
perhaps the highest, concern.

YGB

On Thu, 10 Sep 1998 Avram_Sacks@cch.com wrote:

> 
> The point about the nature of e-mail discussion groups is well-taken, but
> it is a point that would be valid with respect to any halakhic subject.
> So, "ma nishtana ha sicha ha zeh mikol ha sichot?"   In other words, how
> can the possibility that one's understanding of arayot be tainted through
> missing a key e-mail posting or not having access to the source texts be an
> argument against its discussion on an e-mail list, when that same argument
> can be used to censor any halakhic discussion?   If the point is valid for
> matters of arayot, then it is no less valid for any other subject.
> 
> Kol tuv,
> 
> //Avi
> Avram Sacks
> Chicago, IL
> sacksa@cch.com
> achdut@enteract.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > From: "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
> > Subject: Re: Public Discussions of Arayos
> >
> >   b) textual: R' Bechhoffer claims that the subject matter of
> >   the discussion is inappropriate based on the mishnah of "Ein
> >   Dorshin", but does not give a rationale.  Someone else cites
> >   Igrot Moshe that extends the *subject* matter of "sitrei arayot"
> >   to family planning and other matters. [snip]
> 
> ---- Having Been the "Someone else" That you refer to, allow me to note
> that there is a significant difference between the relevant sections of
> Shulchan Aruch and an email discussion group. The former is complete and
> uncut before you, sources can be checked, continuation of study is open
> before you and the chance of error is significantly reduced. However,
> discussion groups that are constantly joined or left by many in the middle
> of a "conversation" can clearly open the possibility for error due to
> missing a point. [snip]
> Respectfully yours,
> J. Schwartz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

>I'm not 100 percent sure of what your main point is, however, as long 
>as you brought up this sevara it's worthy to understand it as Rashi
does. 
	As far as I see,  my point remains,  that a psak is made based on a
sevara.  The exact understanding of the sevara varies among the Rishonim
as you note,  but bottom line it's a serious psak based on sevara.

Gershon

_____________________________________________________________________
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 read in a book the other day which describes yeridas hdoros as begininng
from Adam ha rishon untill the present. I know most people try to explain
yeridas hadoros from matan torah (maamad har sini) there is a big nafka
minah between the two. If yerida hadoros is a function of maamad har sini
then it should only apply to jews, but if it's based on the generations
from adam ha rishon, then it should apply to all mankind including
non-jews. The book I read didn't have a source. Does anyone have sources
which will indicate where the yerida begins. I think this will also help
us better understand the concept in general.
Elie ginsparg

In Avodah #44, Jonathan Baker writes:

<<< R' Bechhoffer claims that the subject matter of the discussion is
inappropriate based on the mishnah of "Ein  Dorshin", but does not give a
rationale.  ... ... I object to the applicability of this mishnah to this
discussion based on the *verb* rather than the *subject*.  The Gemara,
and the Rambam after it (Isurei Biah 22:17 et seq.) are quite explicit as
to the rationale of Ein Dorshin: that if Sitrei Arayot are taught before
three, one is in chavrusah with the rebbe, and the other two are in
chavrusah with each other, and they will not hear accurately what the
rebbe is saying on the matter.  It's quite clear, then, that "dorshin"
refers to speech, and speech only. ... ... I submit, with all due respect
to Rabbi Bechhoffer, that as a *print* medium, these email lists are not
relevant to Ein Dorshin, any more than the oft-cited chapters in Shulchan
Aruch (OH 240, EH 23) are relevant to Ein Dorshin.  Since the material is
in
print, all readers can be certain that they've seen all the words said by
the poster. >>>

Mr. Baker has given an excellent summary of the reasoning behind Ein
Dorshin, but I think that it can indeed apply to e-mail as well as to
speech. The important criteria is not so much the identity of the medium,
but rather the likelihood that one of the students will miss part of the
shiur.

Mr. Baker writes that <<< Since the material is in print, all readers can
be certain that they've seen all the words said by the poster. >>> This
is true only for individual postings, *not* for the discussion as a
whole. We see from the explanation of Ein Dorshin that Chazal were
particularly worried about the side discussion which occurs when one
student needs to ask the teacher to clarify a point. Teaching two
students is okay, because the second student will have no choice but to
listen to the teacher's clarification. The problem arises with three
students, who will be tempted to learn together, and will miss that
important point. (Though I have not seen this in print, I would imagine
that a similar logic forbids public shiurim on these topics; even if no
questions are allowed from the audience, there is still a substantial
fear that their minds will wander, and because the medium is speech, the
missed portions are irretreivable.)

We residents of cyberspace have seen many cases of a person who missed an
important posting for any of several reasons: never got the email,
accidentally deleted it, skimmed it instead of studied it, subscribed
after the discussion began, etc etc etc. More than once I myself sent in
a posting which looked awfully foolish because I failed to read what
someone else had written. A printed sefer is in a different category. All
the words are there, usually in a single volume. Unlike a verbal shiur,
one can easily go back and review any portion which one has not yet
mastered.

It is my opinion that Chazal did not seem to apply Ein Dorshin to printed
works. If it did apply, then OC 240 and EH 23-25 would be much shorter or
omitted entirely. But instead, they are included in Shulchan Aruch, and
are quite explicit in what they say. If I or anyone else ever complained
about a shortage of printed works on these subjects, I believe that such
complaints apply only to works written in this century. The Shulchan
Aruch (and nosei kelim, etc) covers these subjects in about as much depth
as it does with other subjects, such as muktza, brachos, or eruvin. Which
is to say that the modern reader is pretty much groping in the dark, were
it not for the many excellent seforim of recent years which explain even
the most basic concepts in the most minute detail.

A few weeks ago, in Avodah, I had bemoaned the lack of such seforim on
these intimate subjects, and I suggested starting an email group
specifically for this purpose. For the reasons I explained above, I now
believe that a group of more than 3 people (and maybe even more than 2
people) would be prohibited by Ein Dorshin. However, two people wrote to
me about a sefer which has been published in Israel which deals
specifically with these topics. I am currently trying to obtain a copy of
it. Both of those people asked me not to publicize it, and although it
strikes me as very wrong to withhold Torah from anyone (especially since
we are not dealing with secrets of kabbala, but rather halacha l'maaseh
of daily situations), I must nevertheless obey their request, at least
until I have seen the sefer myself, at which point I will be able to make
a more informed decision about their desire for secrecy.

Akiva Miller

_____________________________________________________________________
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]

Jonathan Baker writes:
<<
It seems counterintuitive to me...  " I know it's wrong,
but I'm willing to face the consequences in Olam Haba."  How is that 
different from a) someone who says "I know it's wrong to drive to shul
on Shabbat, but because of my great love for shul I'll do it and face
the consequences", in his self-description?  
>>

There is a big difference between the two examples, though I do not know if it
impacts on the basic question of aveyra lishma.  One is a d'oraysa, the other
d'rabbanan.  

<<
The way R' Zevin describes him sounds even worse, b) a choteh umachti et
harabim, in that he not only learned Torah for himself but *also taught it to
the townspeople*? 
Choteh umachti et harabim is about the only sin I know of which gets a
burning eternal hell.  God forbid such a Gaon would merit such a
punishment.  How are we to understand the Rogatchover's behavior? 
>>

I would not be so harsh on the Rogatchover.  First, because of the difference
between d'oraysa and d'rabbanan.  Second, because of the differing opinions in
the g'mara.  The initial position of the gmara is that one may learn anything
in Torah, so long as one is encountering it for the first time.  Rashi
explains that there is no simcha in learning the first time around ( Rashi
actually says there is tza'ar ).  Only Rabi Yehuda, as a dissenting opinion,
says even that is prohibited.

Maybe the Rogatchover felt that the people of his town ( he lived in Dvinsk, I
think, not Rogatchov, where he was not even the Rov of the town, that honor
belonged to Rav Meir Simcha ) either would not get pleasure from learning
Torah ( see Biur Halacha in Mishna Brura 554:1 who discusses the issue of why
children do not learn Torah on Tish'a B'Ab ) or would be pained when learning
something for the first time.

I agree, though, that his actions were most extraordinary, and a non-Baal
Nefesh should be machmir against his position and accept as many non-
contradictory chumros as possible in this issue :)

YGB wrote in response to the following:

<<
> 	This is a weird situation.  However, have you seen anywhere
> whether the sheva brochos (I know that you need a minyan, but if you
> have a minyan) can be made by women?


Pischei Teshuva EH 62:14, only men. This is, I think, because, requiring
ten men present it is a davar she'b'kedusha - which pertains only to
males. 
>>

Women were permitted to leyn, even though it is a davar sheh-bikdusha, and
required a minyan.  They were restricted as a matter of k'vod ha-tzibbur.  I
do not know that this would apply to sheva brachot.

Eliyahu Teitz

Sorry to quiblle, but the Rogatchover was the Rav in Dvinsk - of the
Chassidim. R' Meir Simcha was the Rav of the Misnagdim. They did get along
well!

YGB

On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> Maybe the Rogatchover felt that the people of his town ( he lived in Dvinsk, I
> think, not Rogatchov, where he was not even the Rov of the town, that honor
> belonged to Rav Meir Simcha ) either would not get pleasure from learning
> Torah ( see Biur Halacha in Mishna Brura 554:1 who discusses the issue of why
> children do not learn Torah on Tish'a B'Ab ) or would be pained when learning
> something for the first time.
> 
> 

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

I think leyning is actually Talmud Torah d'Rabbim, not a davar
she'b'kedusha.

YGB

On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> Women were permitted to leyn, even though it is a davar sheh-bikdusha,
> and required a minyan.  They were restricted as a matter of k'vod
> ha-tzibbur.  I do not know that this would apply to sheva brachot. 
> 
> Eliyahu Teitz
> 

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

v

While Yeridas HaDoros may be an observable phenomenon, it is not a
principle of Judaism, as evidenced by the halacha - at least theoretical -
that a greater Beis Din later in history can overrule a lesser Beis Din's
earlier enactments.

YGB

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

I don't understand why Kal VaChomer is listed as a middah shehaTorah nidreshes
bah, and not considered a form of s'varah.

IOW, what is the line between d'rashah and s'varah? It's not what I'd think --
textual analysis vs. logical deduction, as that would not include kv"ch under
d'rashah.

Or, do I just misunderstand kv"ch?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5919 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 11-Sep-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

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


[ 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 ]