Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 026

Tuesday, October 20 1998

• Re: repetitive amoraim
• Shulchan Aruch & Truth
• Re: Shulchan Aruch & Truth
• Re[2]: Shulchan Aruch & Truth
• summary re Acharon-shel-... leining
• Go'eil HaDam
• Hatam Sofer on sevara/humility
• Re: Go'eil HaDam
• Re: Go'eil HaDam
• Re: Hatam Sofer on sevara/humility
• Re[2]: Go'eil HaDam
• status of Adam and Chavah before the sin
• Shaas Kashruso
• Rabbinic titles, new question
• Re: Rabbinic titles, new question
• RE: Kehillah
• Re: Kehillah

Eli Turkel comments:

<<
    What bothers me is the concept that these Amoraim never repeated
themselves.
In particular we know that Rav Yochanan lead a long life and had several
generations of students. I find it hard to believe that he never repeated
himself
or any idea...Would it be up to all the students to find out the previous
disagreement and realize that the same principals would apply to the new
situation?
>>

I think that it is fair to assume that the amoraim repeated themselves.  The
analysis in the g'mara is predicated on the assumption that there is no need
for the editors of shas to repeat the same line of reasoning if not to teach
something new.

Eliyahu Teitz

> Daniel Eidensohn writes
> Clallei HaPsak are general guidelines not absolute rules.

But then again Rav Karo's rules are also general guidelines not absolute rules.
I understand that Chazon Ish has given a list of cases where the
Shulchan Arukh paskens against his rules.

I don't believe that any posek wants to be a mere bean counter.
I suspect that almost all poskin who give rules bend those rules when
they personally feel strongly about a certain position.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

     My constant thread has been:
     
     They didn't bend the rules per se so much as have a mesorah or a 
     Minhog that contradicted the rule, often overriding it.
     
     There are a LOT of minhogim in my shul that go back hundreds of years, 
     yet have few written sources; and have become out-of-vogue in this age 
     where shuls tend to follow more Yeshivish Minhogim and pasken like the 
     Mishno Breruo.  With all due respect to theose 2 categories, there are 
     legitimate Mesoros that go in a different direction. 
     
     Regards,
     Rich


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Shulchan Aruch & Truth 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/20/98 3:20 AM


     
> Daniel Eidensohn writes
> Clallei HaPsak are general guidelines not absolute rules.
     
But then again Rav Karo's rules are also general guidelines not absolute rules. 
I understand that Chazon Ish has given a list of cases where the
Shulchan Arukh paskens against his rules.
     
I don't believe that any posek wants to be a mere bean counter.
I suspect that almost all poskin who give rules bend those rules when 
they personally feel strongly about a certain position.
     
kol tuv,
Eli Turkel
     

     Again, I would like to humbly assert that the mechanics MIGHT be 
     overriden from time to time by a Minhog or Mesorah, and that this 
     system was used in cases were there was a lack of a Masorah or a 
     conflicting Mesorah.
     
     Let me illustrate.  We learned in Yeshiva that according to the Baal 
     haMaro, the BEST biur chaometz is achilo and therefore he holds eating 
     chometz after the zman dirrabonon on erev Pesach is ok or even a 
     preferred way to be rid of chometz.  We all KNEW, without seeing it in 
     a sefer, that the "OLAM" does not hold this way.  (Forgive me for 
     being rusty this was about 30 years ago).
     
     Sometimes a Beis Ysoef had a clear Mesorah what the din was, and 
     therefore felt secure in ignoring his hypothetical Beis Din.  That's 
     my spin on this.
     
     Regards,
     Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re:Shulchan Aruch & Truth 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/19/98 5:51 PM


Eli Turkel wrote:
     
> Daniel Eidensohn asks
>
> >> I have not found any source prior to the Beis Yosef who says that he is 
> >> not going to even try to answer the many profound questions raised but 
> >> instead will use a mechanical strategy of determining halacha l'maaseh. 
> >> I would appreciate any source that says the purely mechanical approach 
> >> is considered Hora'ah or Truth.
>
> Aren't the rules that we pasken like Rabbi Akiva or Rebbe.
> Rav Yochanan against Resh Lakish, according to Rav and Shmuel depending 
> on issurim or monetary matters, Rava against Abaye all manisfetations of 
> a mechanical approach rather than seeking out the truth. i.e. the Gemara 
> is stating that it can't decide the truth between previous generations
> and so rules will substitute.
     
Clallei HaPsak are general guidelines not absolute rules. The Chavas Yair #94 
has an extensive discussion of this point. He cites many examples where the 
clallei hapsak are not followed. Therefore they are to understood to be stating 
the typical victor when there is conflict between specific authorities. They 
were apparently established by Rav Ashi based on knowledge of  success record. 
When we are unable to find adequate proof to support a particular position we 
can rely on these rules.
We can assume that the Rif Rosh and Rambam each attempted to clarify halacha 
based upon sevora and proof. If the Beis Yosef had said that after carefully 
weighing all the evidence he found that he   typically agreed with the Rambam's 
analysis - his reliance in case of uncertainty on the Rambam would parallel the 
gemoras use of Clallei haPsak. However, he  in fact states that he can't find 
any position clearly superior to another. Therefore he will not rely upon a 
particular posek's view of Truth. He instead will follow the majority of the 
outstanding authorities. It is thus a mechanical rule - not concerned with the 
content of the analysis but merely which is the majority viewpoint. This 
mechanical rule is not eilu v'eilu. The Rif, the Rosh and the Rambam - 
individually can be viewed as True according to Eilu v' Eilu. Following a 
majority will end up with a halachic view which is not completely consistent 
with any actual posek.
     
Again I reiterate - I don't know of any posek prior to the Beis Yosef who 
utilized such a concept of psak. The only precedent seems to be the Sanhedrin 
itself. But I don't know of any basis to assert that the Rif, Rosh and Rambam 
are equivalent to the Sanhedrin - the Beis Yosef himself does not make such an 
assertion.
                                                Daniel Eidensohn
     
     
     
     
     

In response to my posting (see V2#20 -- post available upon e-mail
request!), Eliyahu Teitz (echoed by Gershon Dubin) noted the practical
reason why the leining for Acharon shel Pessach shechal b'Shabbos doesn't
start from "Kol ha'b'chor": it can "maximally be broken up into [only] 5
aliyos," while 7 aliyos are the minimum on any given Shabbos.  I responded
to Eliyahu, via e-mail, that this minimum was understood (and was probably
the reason behind the "Breuer's" minhag for both Pessach and Sh'mi'ni
Atzeres) but wouldn't explain the b'raisa -- to wit, "why would the b'raisa
[that I couldn't find] explicitely say that such is the case for Sh'mi'ni
Atzeres shechal b'Shabbos and not state anything re Acharon shel Pessach --
m'mo nafshoch (if the 7-aliyah req. is so obvious, why state the former; if
not, why not state the same re Pessach)?"  To Gershon, I added, "...
moreover, [the b'raisa is] brought l'halachah by the SA re Sh'mi'ni Atzeres
but not re Pessach, which appears to indicate that the reason re Sh'mi'ni
Atzeres is not the 7-aliyos-minimum need."

My posting also noted a split among Rishonim re always starting the
Sh'mi'ni Atzeres leining from "Asair t'asair" -- Gershon echoed RaShY's BT
M'gillah 35a comment, which I had referred to, but didn't explain this
split -- to quote from my e-mail to him, "My questions re the start of this
practice, why it was mentioned by Ashkenazic g'dolim like RaShY and the Tur
but not by the Tur's father, and why it's apparently mentioned only by
Ashkenazic g'dolim still stand extant, however."

Eliyahu's response to my message [slightly edited] explicitely answered the
b'raisa-related issue and may also answer (as per below) the
split-in-Sh'mi'ni-Atzeres-practice issue: "One possibility for why the
b'raysa only mentions Sh'mini Atzeres could be...as follows:

"The leyning of Kol Hab'chor ( and Aser T'aser ) is only for b'nei chutz
la'aretz.  The b'raysa was said by a tanna who was obviously living in
Eretz Yisrael, where there is no 8th day of Pesach (or 2nd day of Shavuos,
for
that matter -- you didn't mention the issue of Shavuos, but it follows for
the same reason).  Why would they read Aser T'aser at all?

"I think the answer lies in the reading cycle.  The minhag in Eretz Yisrael
was
to finish the Torah twice in seven years.  As such, there was not an annual
Simchas Torah.  During those years when there is no Simchas Torah, what
would
be a fitting reading for Sh'mini Ateres?  The moados of Devarim are
appropriate.  But immediately preceeding that section is the parasha
regarding
Ma'asros, which relate to the season since it is harvest time.

"Since that was the ONLY time Kol Habechor was read in Eretz Yisrael, and
it
dealt with maasrot, Aser t'aser was added to that reading.  The tanna did
not
address the other days because he didn't have them.  For b'nai chutz
la'aretz,
however, who have 2 extra days of yom tov, we took only what was necessary
for
5 aliyos, namely Kol hab'chor.  It goes without saying that if you need
more
aliyos, as when the day falls on Shabbos, that one would add more to the
reading, and why not add what was already being done for Sh'mini Atzeres."
Because it's possible that certain [non-Ashkenazic] communities follow EY
practice even though the reading cycle has changed, this cogent analysis
may also explain why only certain Ashkenazic g'dolim mentioned the practice
of always starting from "Asair t'asair" on Sh'mi'ni Atzeres.

I hope y'all found these thoughts useful, and I appreciate the significant
contributions made by Eliyahu and Gershon.  Kol tuv!

                                         Michael

In teaching Makkos this past week, I noted for the first time that the
Rambam argues on the other Rishonim as to the purpose of a Go'eil haDam.
The Chinuch says a Go'eil HaDam only gets license to kill (a rotzei'ach
b'meizid, let's say for now) after Beis Din paskens a chiyuv missa. The
Ramabam at the beginning of Hil. Rotzei'ach says pretty clearly that the
GhD can even kill the murderer before BD enters the case.

The Rambam also hold that the level of evidence necessary for a GhD to act
is only one witness, even without Hasra'ah. The Ra'avd argues and requires
two witnesses.

The Rambam also does not cite l'halacha the Gemara that says that if there
are no heirs a GhD is appointed by BD.

All this leads me to propose that the Rambam views a GhD as some form of
vigilane justice. The other Rishonim view him as a form of a District
Attorney, responsible for getting the case before BD.

The Rambam seems to fit in better with "pashut pshat" in the pesukim in
Mas'ei.


YGB

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

I wrote:

>>  The book had been published the previous year by R. Eliezer Lieberman

R. YGB asks:

>Sorry to be a zealot, R' Eli, but "R."?

Good question.  [R.] Lieberman, who was originally from Hungary, was
trained as a rabbi and, upon his arrival in Berlin, began to give
derashot in the main shul.  Later, of course, he joined the reformers.
As far as my giving him the abbreviated title "R.," I was following the
example of the Hatam Sofer who, if memory serves (and please correct me
if I am mistaken), also referred to him as R. Lieberman.

>I cited Shabbos on the basis of the teshuva

Many gedolim of course cite from memory.  Occasionally an error slips in
and is not caught in the process of bringing the writing to press.

>I am not sure whom you think he means by
>Acharonim - Lieberman and Choriner?

Sorry for lack of clarity.  I understand the Hatam Sofer to be using the
term in the sense of the gemara, or more specifically, Rava, who says,
We [meaning, presumably himself and his colleagues] are like a finger in
wax when it comes to sevara.

>The truth is, however, we might as well forget the CS and go back to the
>Gemara itself! The Gemara - be it like Rashi or the CS - denigrates the
>sevaritic capacity of Amoraim! What conclusions can we draw from that?!

>Not, to be sure, that we not use sevara, that is the most essential
>component of Torah study! - but that we do so with humility and the
>realization that we are wont to err, and worse!

Agreed.  What is striking is that Rava is denigrating his own abilities
in comparison to his predecessors.  It seems clear that the statement
should be used by everyone, no matter how learned, to remind him or
herself of the fallibility of one's own sevarot.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

     All of theses possibilities might have existed at different times.
     
     It seems that in the early days of "fronteir justice" the GHD had 
     almost carte blanche rights to go after an alleged Rotsieach, and that 
     the Beis din was there to protect a rotsiach bishgogo from the Goel 
     Hadam.
     
     After time, when the "frontier" became more civilzed, Beis Din 
     probably took over most functions - and then the GHD was limited to 
     the case of a shobggeg who andered out of Orei Milot 
     OR perhaps the Korov lemeizid case where Beis Din couldn't execute the 
     rotsieach, but the rotsieach was not entitled to the safety and 
     kapporo of the orei Mikot.
     
     Not so much that the Ikkor haDin changed so much, as the Beis Din 
     evolved into a more powerful institution and needed the help of the 
     GHD/District Attorney less and less; and vigilante-ism became less and 
     less desirable.  And during the time of Sanhedrin, Beis din had such 
     flexibility.  
     
     My 2 prutos.
     Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Go'eil HaDam 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/20/98 10:09 AM


In teaching Makkos this past week, I noted for the first time that the 
Rambam argues on the other Rishonim as to the purpose of a Go'eil haDam. 
The Chinuch says a Go'eil HaDam only gets license to kill (a rotzei'ach 
b'meizid, let's say for now) after Beis Din paskens a chiyuv missa. The 
Ramabam at the beginning of Hil. Rotzei'ach says pretty clearly that the 
GhD can even kill the murderer before BD enters the case.
     
The Rambam also hold that the level of evidence necessary for a GhD to act 
is only one witness, even without Hasra'ah. The Ra'avd argues and requires 
two witnesses.
     
The Rambam also does not cite l'halacha the Gemara that says that if there 
are no heirs a GhD is appointed by BD.
     
All this leads me to propose that the Rambam views a GhD as some form of 
vigilane justice. The other Rishonim view him as a form of a District 
Attorney, responsible for getting the case before BD.
     
The Rambam seems to fit in better with "pashut pshat" in the pesukim in 
Mas'ei.
     
     
YGB
     
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659 
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
     
     
     

I certainly do not argue with the logic of your position, but it won't
explain the Rambam.

On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

>      All of theses possibilities might have existed at different times.

YGB

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

In a message dated 98-10-20 10:23:54 EDT, you write:

<< 
 Agreed.  What is striking is that Rava is denigrating his own abilities
 in comparison to his predecessors.  It seems clear that the statement
 should be used by everyone, no matter how learned, to remind him or
 herself of the fallibility of one's own sevarot.
 
 Kol tuv,
 
 Eli Clark
  >>
Agreed, but again with dynamic balance. The flip side is that you feel you can
never trust your own sevara which can lead to the previously discussed
halachic hypocondria in lesser lights or according to some halachic rigidity
in greater lights. I once heard  a pshat in the anvenuta of R' Avkulas in the
Kamtza story. He was gadol hador but had such humility that he didn't consider
himself as such.  When they discussed how to handle the situation with the
Roman messengers he gave his opinion 1st since in dinei nfashot you start from
the lowest. The other Rabbis considered him the highest and thus wouldn't
"vote" against him . The results are well known.  Of course there are many
other explanations of this anvenuta yet...
I also once heard a shiur on psak where the comment was made-" in halacha
there's no lfi aniyut dati(assuming you think you have a clear understanding).
Easy to articulate these in theory , much harder to know where to come down in
practice in specific situations.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

Ein hochi Nami.

I was merely giving some useful illustrations for background purposes; based 
upon what was taught to me when I learned  Makkos many years ago.

The psukim seem to allow for a lot of power to the GHD, and that the Beis Din's 
mission was to save the rotsieach from this GHD.  And that the role of the GDH  
evolved in response to Beis Din's more proactive role in the matter.

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Go'eil HaDam  
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/20/98 10:52 AM


I certainly do not argue with the logic of your position, but it won't 
explain the Rambam.
     
On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
     
>      All of theses possibilities might have existed at different times.
     
YGB
     
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659 
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
     
     
     

 >Even if the they had a din of Bnei noach achar ha'cheit nireh li
 > le'chadeish that before the cheit they had a din of Yisroel.

 R' Tzadok HaKohen seems to say this in Takanas HaShavin, p. 165, d"h vezehu
 hateshuvah. See also Derech Hashem, cheilek 2, ch. 4.

 Yisrael Herczeg

     Time for a new thread perhaps?
     
     So what about someone who was frum who goes off the wrong way, does 
     that diminsh his statments beshaas hashrusso?
     
     And perhaps vice versa, does a Baal Teshuvo ipso facto recant on all 
     statements made prior to doing Teshuvo?
     
     Regards,
     Rich Wolpoe
     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Hatam Sofer on sevara/humility 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/20/98 10:23 AM


I wrote:
     
>>  The book had been published the previous year by R. Eliezer Lieberman
     
R. YGB asks:
     
>Sorry to be a zealot, R' Eli, but "R."?
     
Good question.  [R.] Lieberman, who was originally from Hungary, was 
trained as a rabbi and, upon his arrival in Berlin, began to give 
derashot in the main shul.  Later, of course, he joined the reformers. 
As far as my giving him the abbreviated title "R.," I was following the 
example of the Hatam Sofer who, if memory serves (and please correct me 
if I am mistaken), also referred to him as R. Lieberman.
...

     
Kol tuv,
     
Eli Clark
     

I've recently encountered two separate instances of titular inflation, and,
being generally somewhat slow to espy new trends in cultural subgroups (I
prefer that formulation, my wife's kindliest characterizations would probably
include adjectives such as "insensitive" or "oblivious"), wondered whether
these were purely local anomalies or was i missing (yet again) a  sociological
breakthrough. the first instance - about 2 months ago - involved my teenaged
daughter who referred, en passant, to one of our friend's children - a boy
learning in a local kolel at the time - and was corrected by the woman with
whom she was conversing (a "rebbe's wife") and told that one should rather, out
of respect, refer to our neighbor's son as "Rabbi xxx", though to our quite
certain knowledge he did not have semichoh, or even have begun a formal program
leading to such a goal.  We had previously noticed such a phenomenon in a
school context, where the unsemichoh'd would still be referred to as "R." but,
not caring very much,  hadn't thought too much about it and could easily see
the arguments which might be made for doing so - especially in the younger
grades.  Just last week however, someone told me, and i have no idea what the
accuracy might be, that at the local regional yeshiva (ner yisroel) boys  may
be granted the title "R." at some point, though they may not yet have learnt
(at least) yoreh de'oh and do not not have semichoh either. this was also
called  by our data source a "first level" title.  On my natural instinct that
a single datum is a random fluctuation while two bespeak global conspiracy, my
question - is there something more fundamental going on? is this part of a more
widespread trend to raise the relative status of a social grouping?  or was my
data source confused? any replies by those more familiar with the current
cultural anthropology of the yeshivoh velt much appreciated. 

Mechy Frankel				frankel@hq.dswa.mil

     Rabbi Tukachinsky in his Gesher haChayim makes light of the way the 
     title is widely used...
     
     I think you said it right - titular Inflation.
     
     Just a few quick comments:
     
     A lot of people earn bachelors and masters degrees who are less 
     learned than are yeshiva boys - so there is a sense that there shoudl 
     be SOME recoginiation of the long hours of learning.
     
     The German Jews have (had?) a minhog of recongnizing a worthy person 
     with the title Chover, which was an honor but qutie a bit shy of 
     Rabbi.
     
     Many Eastern European Yid'n use the informat title Reb Ploni without 
     meaning to confer Semicho.  
     
     This Yeshiva Student probably got a similar title.  Sort of Rabbi 
     honoris causa.  They called this title Rav umanhig or Rav b'Yisreol 
     instead of Yoreh Yoreh.
     
     Rich Wolpoe
     
     
     
     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Rabbinic titles, new question 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/20/98 2:52 PM


I've recently encountered two separate instances of titular inflation, and, 
being generally somewhat slow to espy new trends in cultural subgroups (I 
prefer that formulation, my wife's kindliest characterizations would probably 
include adjectives such as "insensitive" or "oblivious"), wondered whether 
these were purely local anomalies or was i missing (yet again) a  sociological 
breakthrough. the first instance - about 2 months ago - involved my teenaged 
daughter who referred, en passant, to one of our friend's children - a boy 
learning in a local kolel at the time - and was corrected by the woman with 
whom she was conversing (a "rebbe's wife") and told that one should rather, out 
of respect, refer to our neighbor's son as "Rabbi xxx", though to our quite 
certain knowledge he did not have semichoh, or even have begun a formal program 
leading to such a goal.  We had previously noticed such a phenomenon in a 
school context, where the unsemichoh'd would still be referred to as "R." but, 
not caring very much,  hadn't thought too much about it and could easily see 
the arguments which might be made for doing so - especially in the younger 
grades.  Just last week however, someone told me, and i have no idea what the 
accuracy might be, that at the local regional yeshiva (ner yisroel) boys  may 
be granted the title "R." at some point, though they may not yet have learnt 
(at least) yoreh de'oh and do not not have semichoh either. this was also 
called  by our data source a "first level" title.  On my natural instinct that 
a single datum is a random fluctuation while two bespeak global conspiracy, my 
question - is there something more fundamental going on? is this part of a more 
widespread trend to raise the relative status of a social grouping?  or was my 
data source confused? any replies by those more familiar with the current 
cultural anthropology of the yeshivoh velt much appreciated. 
     
Mechy Frankel                                frankel@hq.dswa.mil
     
     

 David Riceman wrote:
>> 5.  (New subject)  What is the relationship between the American
>> institution called a synagogue and the halachic institution called a
>> kehilla?

R. YGB responded:
>Is not the correct answer "none?"

Yes, I believe that is the correct answer.  But, assuming that David was
interested in more than a "yes" or "no," I will elaborate.

The kehillah developed in the Middle Ages as a form of Jewish communal
organization.  The kehillah collected taxes, administered the community
chest and had the power to regulate public and private behavior.
Leadership was usually in the hands of a number of prominent citizens
(often 7, as in shiv'ah tovei ha-ir) with the rabbi usually exercising a
veto and sometimes more. Legislation and choice of leaders was usually
subject to popular vote, which was more or less democratic (on this, see
my article in the forthcoming issue of the Torah U-Mada Journal).

Thus, as R. YGB notes, there is very little in common between the
kehillah and the contemporary synagogue, which serves primarily as a
house of worship.  In those communities in which a single synagogue
serves the entire Orthodox community and binds them together, there
would be a basis to look at the halakhot regarding kehillah governance
for a precedent regarding the governance of the shul.  But I doubt such
halakhot would be binding.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

In a message dated 98-10-20 15:41:38 EDT, you write:

<< 
 The kehillah developed in the Middle Ages as a form of Jewish communal
 organization.  The kehillah collected taxes, administered the community
 chest and had the power to regulate public and private behavior.
 Leadership was usually in the hands of a number of prominent citizens
 (often 7, as in shiv'ah tovei ha-ir) with the rabbi usually exercising a
 veto and sometimes more. Legislation and choice of leaders was usually
 subject to popular vote, which was more or less democratic (on this, see
 my article in the forthcoming issue of the Torah U-Mada Journal).
 
 Thus, as R. YGB notes, there is very little in common between the
 kehillah and the contemporary synagogue, which serves primarily as a
 house of worship.  In those communities in which a single synagogue
 serves the entire Orthodox community and binds them together, there
 would be a basis to look at the halakhot regarding kehillah governance
 for a precedent regarding the governance of the shul.  But I doubt such
 halakhot would be binding.
 
 Kol tuv,
 
 Eli Clark
  >>
So in essence it sounds like the formation of a kehilla was a voluntary
"ahalachic" process(ie halacha neither encourages nor discourages this type of
process). Put another way-if a new orthodox community were being formed in a
remote site and asked for guidance on self governance, what would halacha say?

Kol tuv
Joel Rich

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


[ 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 ]