Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 033

Tuesday, October 27 1998

• Noah
• Synagogue and changing of minhag
• Aveirah Lishmah: a source against?
• Rambam's definition of Torah
• RE: Aveirah Lishmah: a source against?
• Re[2]: Aveirah Lishmah: a source against?
• Re: YU and TV
• Re: YU and TV
• Re: Synagogue and changing of minhag
• Re: YU and TV
• Re: Rambam's definition of Torah
• More Rambam like Yerushalmi.
• Hechsher mitzva of taking a korban nedava
• Re: Kehilla, Minhag, etc
• Avodah Mission
• Avodah Mission
• Re[2]: YU and TV "sthiko ke'hodoyo"

     New Thread.
     
     There seems to be a lot of criticims from Chazal re: Noach as a 
     tsaddik.  (probably based upon the haftoro ki mei Noach zos li)...
     
     Anyway we discussed him in a Parsho shiur. 
     
     1) What motivated his korbonos (korbon toda?  chatos?, etc.)
     
     2) Why did he get drunk?  (hedonism?  Depression over the descruction? 
     etc.)
     
     Your comments (and sources) are most welcome.
     
     Regards,
     Rich

David Riceman (and others) asks about the propriety of (a) starting a
new shul with a different minhag from the existing shul and (b) a new
rav changing a preexisting minhag in a shul.

On the issue of starting a new shul, the basic halakhic analysis seems
to oppose such a move: in addition to the issurim of lo titgodedu and
poresh min ha-tzibbur, there is the positive value of be-rov am hadrat
melekh.  Nevertheless, a well-known teshuvah of the Radbaz (I will check
and provide the citation if requested) holds that a new shul should be
established where keeping everyone together in a single shul will result
in friction and in-fighting with the resulting anger and ill will.  I
believe this pesak is generally accepted by later aharonim.

People have noted that most large cities today have shuls with many
different minhagim, which leads one to question why subsequent
immigrants were not required to follow the minhag established by the
earlier ones.  The answer, I think, lies in a critical distinction
between the classic discussions of the halakhic question -- in which an
individual moves to a place with a longstanding custom -- and the
prevalent historical circumstance of the last century -- in which entire
communities of people decamped and regrouped on a different continent.
Moreover, in many cases the newcomers came with their own halakhic
leadership and far outnumbered the early settlers.

While this phenomenon typifies the 20th century and explains the variety
of minhagim in large metropolitan areas, whether in Israel, the US or
elsewhere, it is by no means unprecedented.  After the Spanish
expulsion, communities in North Africa, Italy and Greece were inundated
by Spanish Jews who came as whole communities with their own minhagim,
nusahei tefillah and more.   Many teshuvot from the period address these
issues, and the literature is too vast to summarize here.  Suffice it to
say, however, that a strong halakhic foundation was laid for the
establishment of separate shuls with separate minhagim to accomodate the
religious needs of the new immigrants.

Several centuries earlier, the Rosh made his famous migration from
Ashkenaz to Sefarad.  As is well known, his pesak (including on issues
of minhag) continued to reflect his Ashkenazic roots rather than his
Sefardic surroundings.

On the touchier issue of a new rav chnaging minhagim in a shul, I should
clarify an unstated assumption.  Owing largely to the dual cataclysms of
immigration and the sho'ah, most congregations today lack either
historical contiguity or demographic homogeneity.  In contrast to
communities destroyed by the Nazis in Germany, Greece or Italy -- with
traditions reaching back to the time of the early rishonim (not to
mention Sefardic communities in Syria and Egypt with even older
traditions), one will rarely find today a congregation with a tradition
going back more than 3 or 4 generations.  Even then, the "minhag" that
developed generally was not so much a transplanted tradition (such as
Breuer's), as it was an ad hoc compromise worked out by people from
differing backgrounds.  In my view, while such a "minhag" has the
strength of hazakah, it does not rise to the level of a minhag ha-makom
as defined in Halakhah.  Consequently, a new rav would, I think, be
justified in changing such a "minhag" if a strong basis for the change
existed.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

In B'rachos 10a, Yeshaiah berates Chizkiah for not having children. (And
assigns this as the cause of Chizkiah's illness.) Chizkiah's motivation is
that he learnt from Ruach haKodesh what kind of children he would have, and
wanted to spare the world of these evil people. Yeshaiah objects that man
doesn't belong meddling in kavshei Rachmanah.

Reading the Gemara at face value, it would appear that we're to do what we are
obligated to do, even if it appears to run against His goals.


Second, did we ever discuss the boundry between aveirah lishmah and eis
la'asos? Is there one, or is eis la'asos a kind of aveirah lishmah?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5960 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 26-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

R. YGB writes:

>You are entitled to your opinion.

For what it's worth, this is not MY opinion, but that of the late Talner
Rav ztl., R. Yitzhak Twersky, one of the foremost authorities on the
Rambam in this or any other century.

> but the Chasam Sofer felt that the
>Rambam included material that is not "Torah" in the Mishne Torah. He
>regarded Hil Kiddush HaChodesh as an example thereof. See the Teshuvos CM
>end of no. 197 and Chiddushim, BB 21a. I would say Hil. Dei'os
[I assume you mean Yesodei ha-Torah]
> Perek 4
>falls into the same category.

I must apologize, but I am having more than a little trouble
understanding your opinion.
In a single posting you mention

> "Inner Space" by R' Aryeh
>Kaplan [and] my uncle R' Immanuel
>Schochet's "Mystical Concepts in Chassidus."

which you classify as

>"essential components of Talmud Torah."

a classification I have no interest in disputing (now :)).  But when it
comes to material which the Rambam himself calls Ma'aseh Bereishit and
part of Pardes (or do you dispute that?), you say it is not Torah.  I
find this more than a little difficult to understand.

As far as the Hatam Sofer (amazing how often he pops up in our
discussions!), I am assuming, based on your posting, that he does not
say in the passages cited that Rambam's definiton of Ma'aseh Bereishit
or Pardes included material that was not Torah.

Incidentally, while the Hatam Sofer's opinion is interesting, it is not
really relevant.  The issue is what the Rambam himself thought was
Torah.  Given what we know about the respective orientations of the
Rambam and the Hatam Sofer, it should surprise no one that the Hatam
Sofer might have a narrower definition of Torah than the Rambam.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

a couple of points regarding your question:

1 - maybe pru urvu is different (defined as "mitzvah rabah")

2 - maybe ais la'asos... is limited to cases of pressing need (e.g. eliyahu
b'har hacarmel), as opposed to situations akin to chizkiya's.

3 - maybe a distinction can be drawn between kum v'aseh and shev v'al
taaseh. (Admittedly, this distinction seems counter-intuitive.)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: micha@aishdas.org [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 26, 1998 12:50 PM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: Aveirah Lishmah: a source against?
> 
> 
> In B'rachos 10a, Yeshaiah berates Chizkiah for not having 
> children. (And
> assigns this as the cause of Chizkiah's illness.) Chizkiah's 
> motivation is
> that he learnt from Ruach haKodesh what kind of children he 
> would have, and
> wanted to spare the world of these evil people. Yeshaiah 
> objects that man
> doesn't belong meddling in kavshei Rachmanah.
> 
> Reading the Gemara at face value, it would appear that we're 
> to do what we are
> obligated to do, even if it appears to run against His goals.
> 
> 
> Second, did we ever discuss the boundry between aveirah 
> lishmah and eis
> la'asos? Is there one, or is eis la'asos a kind of aveirah lishmah?
> 
> -mi
> 
> -- 
> Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by 
> Syria 5960 days!
> micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 26-Oct-98)
> For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
> http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
> 

     Does this explain why so many people attempt to be mekayaeim piryo 
     v'rivyoh via mitzvo habo bidei aveiro??  <GRIN>
     
     Humorously yours,
     R. wolpoe

__________________ Reply Separator ___
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate

a couple of points regarding your question:
     
1 - maybe pru urvu is different (defined as "mitzvah rabah")
     

Reb Yosef:


	The U.S. Government doesn't view YU and RIETS as one entity. The
President of the university doesn't view YU and RIETS as one entity. The
graduate schools, medical schools, law schools and high schools don't view
YU and RIETS as one entity.  I question where you get your "facts". 

Hi All,

I'm not really sure where this discussion is going and the merit of
getting it there either... but in the interest of clarification and
communication, I would like to clarify what the issue seems to be.

Rabbi Bechoffer's main point I believe is contained in the following
quote:

"It
seems that an institution dedicated to cultivating yiras shomayim among
its entire student body should not afford them with cable TV in its
lounges and allow public groups to engage in watching questionable
programs."

He is lumping all the schools together only in the sense of an
administration and affiliation.  The point is - why is cable TV, or
IMHO, TV, being made publicly available to the student body of a Yeshiva
and in public lounges to boot.  The entire Torah community is pretty
much in agreement that TV is not a good thing to promote.  I doubt that
any rebbeim in YU have TVs in their homes.  My own personal opinions
about TV aside, it does seem pretty improper to have TV's made available
to the student body of a yeshiva.  (Once it's available, I don't think
that it is reasonable to ask why they don't limit it's usage to watch
inapropriate shows - this is a school not a jail.  These are adults that
we are talking about.  I'd rather we teach them other ways to occupy
their time.)  

I don't think that most or all of this list would disagree with this
comment.  Therefore, all of the schools and students are in a way
implicated in the wrong-doing.  Shetika k'hoda'ah dami.  Even if every
student in REITS objected to the South Park article, did even one of
them go to the administration and ask that the TV's be totally removed
from the lounges?  Did any of the administration?  If they did, then
wonderful - that is an example of proactive frumkeit and R' YGB's
criticism is somewhat answered.  But if noone protested, then I think
there is a tzad to implicate everyone in the University.  Either Torah
(and its values) rules, or it does not.  That unfortunately is the
question that seems to hound YU.  We all know that extremely amazing
Talmidei chachomim learn at YU - but REITS is not an island - at least
to the public - it's just one integral part of the University.

Anyway - unless people want to shift this thread to a discussion of
TV(I'm not sure there is much, or desire, to discuss!)  I propose ending
the thgread unless there is something of philosophic or halachik import
that needs to be explored. YU will be viewed by people how they want to
view it and any arguments here are not going to change people's
perceptions.

Take care,

Joel Margolies    


Jonathan Schwartz wrote:
> 
> Reb Yosef:
> 
>         The U.S. Government doesn't view YU and RIETS as one entity. The
> President of the university doesn't view YU and RIETS as one entity. The
> graduate schools, medical schools, law schools and high schools don't view
> YU and RIETS as one entity.  I question where you get your "facts".

-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com	
W-212-762-2386

In a message dated 98-10-26 12:24:01 EST, you write:

<< 
 On the issue of starting a new shul, the basic halakhic analysis seems
 to oppose such a move: in addition to the issurim of lo titgodedu and
 poresh min ha-tzibbur, there is the positive value of be-rov am hadrat
 melekh.  >>

Is this positive value drabanan, duraita or from an ethic outside of halacha?
The pasuk of course is from mishlei and I think the strength of the value is
important since there are usually a number of considerations. A simple example
is reading the megilla-does brov am outweigh the ability to hear without
straining and having to read some portions from your own megilla due to crowd
noise?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

An accurate restatement of my point, and thanks. But I would like to
highlight one minor additional point - that even if we were to grant the
TV's somehow, but cable?! :-) .

YGB

On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Joel Margolies wrote:

> Hi All,
> 
> I'm not really sure where this discussion is going and the merit of
> getting it there either... but in the interest of clarification and
> communication, I would like to clarify what the issue seems to be.
> 
> Rabbi Bechoffer's main point I believe is contained in the following
> quote:
> 
> "It
> seems that an institution dedicated to cultivating yiras shomayim among
> its entire student body should not afford them with cable TV in its
> lounges and allow public groups to engage in watching questionable
> programs."
> 
> He is lumping all the schools together only in the sense of an
> administration and affiliation.  The point is - why is cable TV, or
> IMHO, TV, being made publicly available to the student body of a Yeshiva
> and in public lounges to boot.  The entire Torah community is pretty
> much in agreement that TV is not a good thing to promote.  I doubt that
> any rebbeim in YU have TVs in their homes.  My own personal opinions
> about TV aside, it does seem pretty improper to have TV's made available
> to the student body of a yeshiva.  (Once it's available, I don't think
> that it is reasonable to ask why they don't limit it's usage to watch
> inapropriate shows - this is a school not a jail.  These are adults that
> we are talking about.  I'd rather we teach them other ways to occupy
> their time.)  
> 
> I don't think that most or all of this list would disagree with this
> comment.  Therefore, all of the schools and students are in a way
> implicated in the wrong-doing.  Shetika k'hoda'ah dami.  Even if every
> student in REITS objected to the South Park article, did even one of
> them go to the administration and ask that the TV's be totally removed
> from the lounges?  Did any of the administration?  If they did, then
> wonderful - that is an example of proactive frumkeit and R' YGB's
> criticism is somewhat answered.  But if noone protested, then I think
> there is a tzad to implicate everyone in the University.  Either Torah
> (and its values) rules, or it does not.  That unfortunately is the
> question that seems to hound YU.  We all know that extremely amazing
> Talmidei chachomim learn at YU - but REITS is not an island - at least
> to the public - it's just one integral part of the University.
> 
> Anyway - unless people want to shift this thread to a discussion of
> TV(I'm not sure there is much, or desire, to discuss!)  I propose ending
> the thgread unless there is something of philosophic or halachik import
> that needs to be explored. YU will be viewed by people how they want to
> view it and any arguments here are not going to change people's
> perceptions.
> 
> Take care,
> 
> Joel Margolies    
> 
> Joel
> Margolies                                                                           
> margol@ms.com	
> W-212-762-2386
> 

YGB

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

On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

> R. YGB writes:
> 
> >You are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> For what it's worth, this is not MY opinion, but that of the late Talner
> Rav ztl., R. Yitzhak Twersky, one of the foremost authorities on the
> Rambam in this or any other century. 
> 

I do not know what exactly you are attributing to him, but the Chasam
Sofer is a greater authority. You will probably disagree, what can I do
:-).

> > but the Chasam Sofer felt that the >Rambam included material that is
> not "Torah" in the Mishne Torah. He >regarded Hil Kiddush HaChodesh as
> an example thereof. See the Teshuvos CM >end of no. 197 and Chiddushim,
> BB 21a. I would say Hil. Dei'os [I assume you mean Yesodei ha-Torah] >
> Perek 4 >falls into the same category. 
>

I did *not* mean YH 4 and *did* mean Dei'os 4 - the chapter on Healthy
Living, 11th century style.

 
> I must apologize, but I am having more than a little trouble
> understanding your opinion.  In a single posting you mention
> 
> > "Inner Space" by R' Aryeh >Kaplan [and] my uncle R' Immanuel
> >Schochet's "Mystical Concepts in Chassidus." 
> 
> which you classify as
> 
> >"essential components of Talmud Torah." 
> 
> a classification I have no interest in disputing (now :)).  But when it
> comes to material which the Rambam himself calls Ma'aseh Bereishit and
> part of Pardes (or do you dispute that?), you say it is not Torah.  I
> find this more than a little difficult to understand. 
> 

Apology accapted. To understand my position, see the Rambam, Peirush
H'Mishnayos l'Chagiga, begining of Chap. 2, where he says Ma'aseh
Bereishis is natural wisdom, while Ma'aseh Merkavah is divine wisdom (he
says much more, ayain sham). Thus, YH 1-2 are Torah (divine wisdom) while
3-4 are not. Simple?

> As far as the Hatam Sofer (amazing how often he pops up in our
> discussions!), I am assuming, based on your posting, that he does not
> say in the passages cited that Rambam's definiton of Ma'aseh Bereishit
> or Pardes included material that was not Torah. 
> 

I am not a baki in CS (I don't even have a CD-Rom which has his teshuvos).
Mechi?

> Incidentally, while the Hatam Sofer's opinion is interesting, it is not
> really relevant.  The issue is what the Rambam himself thought was
> Torah.  Given what we know about the respective orientations of the
> Rambam and the Hatam Sofer, it should surprise no one that the Hatam
> Sofer might have a narrower definition of Torah than the Rambam. 
>

Look it up! The CS holds that the *Rambam himself* means to tell us that
what he is writing in Kiddush HaChodesh is not Torah.

YGB

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

The Rambam in Ma'aser Sheni 2:13 seems to pakens like the shitta of Bar
Kapara in the R' Chanina Sgan HaKohanim Sugya in the Y-mi Pesachi that the
tum'ah of a vlad tumah l'tamei acheirim is only d'rabbanan. See the Radbaz
and Ri Kurkus there "al asar" (="af'en ort" :-) ).

YGB

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

Ramban in P' Noach notes that the pairs of two animals came of their own
accord to Noach but he had to go and take (VaYikach) the pairs of seven.  Why
the discrepency?  Without Ramban I would have answered simply that the seven
were meant for a korban and physically taking them is a kiyum of a hechsher
mitzva.  However, Ramban doesn't give this answer - (he says the korban
designated animals were going to be killed and they therefore would not
willingly come of their own accord.  Perhaps we can glean a better insight
based on this into the gemara where Rebbe failed to show mercy on the calf
that was to be butchered and simply said that'si ts tafkid, for which Rebbe
was punished with yesurim.  No creature is expected to willingly be killed
even if its tafkid is such.)  Since the Ramban didn't give my answer I wonder
if indeed there is a hechsher mitzva in taking an animal for a korban nedava.

-CB

For those who have been asking about if and how a shul can change its
practices, I recommend the Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim 2, Siman 21. It's 
slightly over 1/2 page in length, and offers many practical definitions
and examples. It is titled "A place where they've followed Minhag and
Nusach Ashkenaz, and now they've added people who follow Minhag and
Nusach S'farad, and they changed some minhagim, whether they acted
correctly."

(In the "Haomer Davar B'shem Omro" department, I must point out that I
saw this Igros Moshe many years ago, but would not have found it today
without the "Yad Moshe" - Index to the Igros Moshe - compiled by fellow
listmember Dr. Daniel Eidensohn. I recommend it to all; I've seen it
available in many seforim stores.)

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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

In an mj-less world, Avodah was a pretty general forum, albeit never as
general as mj was. In what will hopefully be a with-mj world, I think
Avodah's Mission should be more narrowly defined, and we might want to
discuss that.

YGB

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

R' YGB writes:
: In an mj-less world, Avodah was a pretty general forum, albeit never as
: general as mj was. In what will hopefully be a with-mj world, I think
: Avodah's Mission should be more narrowly defined, and we might want to
: discuss that.

I already raised that question with Avi Feldblum, and am awaiting his answer.
Also, I'd be happier if our resolution didn't step on Yaakov Menken's
beis-medrash.

Avodah is clearly intended to be focussed on machshavah: hashkafah, ta'amei
hamitzvos, metahalachah, and the like. That's what it says on the membership
agreement. In practice, though, conversations drift. So, while we have
historically shown a skew toward these areas, we didn't stay strictly within
them.

This focus makes it a AishDasian project -- a means of keeping machshavah and
hargashah in Orthodox Jewish dialogue. I hope it serves to keep our readership
(and to a lesser extent some of the people they talk with off line) more
oriented in these directions.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5961 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 27-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

     I would not like to pick the TV thread nor the YU thread.
     
     I would like to pick up the shtiko ke'hodoyo thread.
     
     There is a concept, that someone wh ohas the power to be "moche" is 
     obligated to do so.  In an open/free society, just who has this power? 
      
     And if there is ANY deviation or abuse in any Yeshiva, are the 
     talimidim who fail to take up the cudgels responsible?
     
     Regards,
     Rich wolpoe
     
        

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


[ 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 ]