Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 035

Wednesday, October 28 1998

• Re[6]: tv, yu, mo
• Re[6]: TV's in Yeshiva
• Re: Re[6]: tv, yu, mo
• Re: Re[6]: TV's in Yeshiva
• Changing the Topic #1: Orthodoxy and Feminism
• Re[6]: tv, yu, mo
• Changing the Topic #2: Tumas Kelim
• Re[7]: tv, yu, mo
• Changing the Topic #3: Mussar over Halacha
• Re: Re[6]: tv, yu, mo
• tv
• Re: Changing the Topic #3: Mussar over Halacha
• Re: Re[7]: tv, yu, mo
• Re: Changing the Topic #3: Mussar over Halacha
• Re[8]: tv, yu, mo
• Re: tv
• Re: Changing the Topic #3: Mussar over Halacha
• Slaves on the ark
• Re: Slaves on the ark
• Re[2]: Changing the Topic #3: Mussar over Halacha
• Re: Re[2]: Changing the Topic #3: Mussar over Halacha
• Minhagim and shuls
• Re[2]: Slaves on the ark
• Re: Slaves on the ark
• Re: Changing the Topic #3: Mussar over Halacha
• Rambam's definition of Torah
• Re: Ma'akeh
• Re[2]: Changing the Topic #3: Mussar over Halacha
• Orthodoxy and Feminism

     And if Rabbi Nochum Lamm is the Moro dasro in quesiton???


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

     
You go to the Rav of that city and ask him, what ever he rules is binding on 
all those that are Tachas Morusoy.
     
Kol Tuv
     
Yitzchok
     

     With regard to Maakeh I am
     
     Regards,
     Richard
     
     


     
It is not to suggest that you are C"V ignorant, I apologize if anyone 
understood it as such
     
Kol Tuv
     
Yitzchok
     

In a message dated 10/27/98 7:04:20 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

>   And if Rabbi Nochum Lamm is the Moro dasro in quesiton???

As long as he bases his Psak on Torahs Moshe, that is the Halacha for his
Asroh!

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

In a message dated 10/27/98 7:09:34 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> With regard to Maakeh I am

Well then I removed it from that too (at least a little). :-)

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

From this week's Jerusalem Post, quoting a featured speaker at the
"Religious Zionism and Modern Orthodoxy" Conference at Ramat Rachel:

"There are women I know who are Orthodox in every way, and ask rabbis
questions on every issue but this one [women's issues]. It is so close to
their heart that they are willing to pioneer a breakthrough - not only to
stretch the Halacha, but actually go beyond it.

"If women preserve the boundaries on every issue but this one, and go
a little beyond it here, we will remain within the Orthodox camp. If we go
beyond the boundaries in every area, that is a diffirent story."

Is this aveirah lishma or plain aveirah?

YGB

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

     Ok I know the minhog of the shul where said Moreh d'asro davende was 
     to consider sons-in-law as stictly a NON-Chiyuv.  I cannot say for 
     sure that the Yeshiva in question did not have its own set of 
     criteria; I think it would have been beneficail if not an obligation 
     to explain it.
     
     how can a talmid ever be chayv in machoo when his rebbe is presumedto 
     know more?  If my macho'o re: Maakeh was based upon ignorance why 
     should I ever be moche again?
     
     In other words, the simple din is one thing.  There mgith be some 
     legit justification for another - such as yhour erudite defnese of 
     Yeshiva X's maakeh.
     
     How do you know for a factg that Rabbi Nochum Lamm is not privy to 
     some sophisticated psak that permits Cable TV in the YU dorm?
     
     In other words, if I am ignorant or your source in Yoreh deah, is it 
     coneviab;e taht you are possibly ignorant of his Halachic 
     justification?
     
     Regards,
     Richard Wolpoe 
     
     
     
     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[4]: tv, yu, mo 

     
You go to the Rav of that city and ask him, what ever he rules is binding on 
all those that are Tachas Morusoy.
     
Kol Tuv
     
Yitzchok
     

In preparing Y-mi today I saw R' Meir Simcha explain a sugya on the basis
of a mind boggling Rambam, Tumas Mes 5:3, who says that the principle of
"Cherev harei hu k'Chalal" applies to all kelim - not just metal - i.e.,
that they receive the same status as that which they touch!

YGB

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

     So if he paskens TV in the lounge is ok, is it OK?  and who are we to 
     challenge him?
     
     
     Regards,
     RW
     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

     And if Rabbi Nochum Lamm is the Moro dasro in quesiton???
     
     
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
     
     
You go to the Rav of that city and ask him, what ever he rules is binding on 
all those that are Tachas Morusoy.
     
Kol Tuv
     
Yitzchok
     
     
     

OK, this is not 100% changing the topic, but, with regard to the ongoing
discussion of TV vs. Ma'akeh, I should point out that a shortcoming in
character is generally regarded as far more debilitating than one in
exacting observance of Halacha. The Chovos HaLevavos, amon others, makes
this point Reference upon request.

BTW, while it may irk one that a Yeshiva exploits the loophole, myself
included, the rationale to exempt a Yeshiva from a ma'akeh is that it is a
chovas gavra, and there is no gavra one can pinpoint as required to put
one up on a public roof.

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 10/27/98 7:14:12 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> Ok I know the minhog of the shul where said Moreh d'asro davende was 
>       to consider sons-in-law as stictly a NON-Chiyuv.  I cannot say for 
>       sure that the Yeshiva in question did not have its own set of 
>       criteria; I think it would have been beneficail if not an obligation 
>       to explain it.

So again one goes to the Moroh D'asroh and asks him the question, and under
normal circumstances would get a clear answer and on what it was based.

>       
>       how can a talmid ever be chayv in machoo when his rebbe is presumedto 
>       know more?  If my macho'o re: Maakeh was based upon ignorance why 
>       should I ever be moche again?

The Shulchan Oruch in the previous mentioned law deals with this.

      
>       In other words, the simple din is one thing.  There mgith be some 
>       legit justification for another - such as yhour erudite defnese of 
>       Yeshiva X's maakeh.

So therefore it is posed as a questioned not as a Macho'oh

>       
>       How do you know for a factg that Rabbi Nochum Lamm is not privy to 
>       some sophisticated psak that permits Cable TV in the YU dorm?

I never suggested otherwise I clearly wrote that there may be Poskim that do
permit it.

>       
>       In other words, if I am ignorant or your source in Yoreh deah, is it 
>       coneviab;e taht you are possibly ignorant of his Halachic 
>       justification?

100% therefore I did NOT pass judgment on him.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

thank you all for your responses. i think tv is emblematic of a sphere which
much of the 'modern' world would not think of asking a rav's opinion, and
are not in hearing range of a kol kore.  The chareidi-yeshiva-chasidish
world  responds and is open to this psaks; at least the left end of MO
doesn't even see a question.    Now what do we do as the psak is
disseminating that the internet is to be avoided, as we've now seen written
[ also the news media...  ]   ?

     how about the principles:
     
     sofeik d'oraiso lechumro?
     
Sakanto chomiro mei'issuro??

Regards,
Richard Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Changing the Topic #3: Mussar over Halacha 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at Tcpgate
Date:    10/27/98 7:20 PM


OK, this is not 100% changing the topic, but, with regard to the ongoing 
discussion of TV vs. Ma'akeh, I should point out that a shortcoming in 
character is generally regarded as far more debilitating than one in 
exacting observance of Halacha. The Chovos HaLevavos, amon others, makes 
this point Reference upon request.
     
BTW, while it may irk one that a Yeshiva exploits the loophole, myself 
included, the rationale to exempt a Yeshiva from a ma'akeh is that it is a 
chovas gavra, and there is no gavra one can pinpoint as required to put 
one up on a public roof.
     
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 10/27/98 7:17:32 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

> So if he paskens TV in the lounge is ok, is it OK?  and who are we to 
>       challenge him?

If he says that he Paskens so according to Halacha then in his Asroh that is
the Halacha (an issue of debate in poskim about different communities in one
city).  

Also I assume he would set guidelines what he considers a permissible show.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

In a message dated 10/27/98 7:20:42 PM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:

> OK, this is not 100% changing the topic, but, with regard to the ongoing
>  discussion of TV vs. Ma'akeh, I should point out that a shortcoming in
>  character is generally regarded as far more debilitating than one in
>  exacting observance of Halacha. The Chovos HaLevavos, amon others, makes
>  this point Reference upon request.

HaMachti'oy Yosser M'Hahorgoy

>  
>  BTW, while it may irk one that a Yeshiva exploits the loophole, myself
>  included, the rationale to exempt a Yeshiva from a ma'akeh is that it is a
>  chovas gavra, and there is no gavra one can pinpoint as required to put
>  one up on a public roof.

There is also the reason that they are not usually used, and in any case this
is not a loophole this is the Halacha.  

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

     Dear Yitzchok,
        Your last reply satisfies my points.
     I would reply privately, but I do not have your email address
     
     Kol Tuv
     Richard 
     
     
100% therefore I did NOT pass judgment on him.
     
Kol Tuv
     
Yitzchok
     

In a message dated 10/27/98 7:27:22 PM EST, Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org writes:

>  Now what do we do as the psak is
>  disseminating that the internet is to be avoided, as we've now seen written
>  [ also the news media...  ]   ?

Good point! I was going to bring this up thanx.

In a message dated 10/27/98 7:30:16 PM EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

>     how about the principles:
>       
>       sofeik d'oraiso lechumro?
>       
>  Sakanto chomiro mei'issuro??

That is why the Mishnoh says Asei L'cho Rav V'histaleik Min Hasofeik.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

I saw today in the haemek davar Perek 7 Pasuk one that Noach had slaves
which he took on the ark. If this is true it could be that the world was
populated by people other than noach and his sons. this would interest me
for a number of reasons. Therefore, I'm wondering if anyone ever saw a
medrash or statement from a rishon which indicated that there were other
humans Besides for OG who survived the Mabul. I also recommend that one
should see the sourcwe inside as most of us (I imagine) grew up with the
impression that Noach's family were the only people to escape the flood.
ELiE GiNSPARG

In a message dated 10/27/98 7:44:08 PM EST, C-Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

> I saw today in the haemek davar Perek 7 Pasuk one that Noach had slaves
>  which he took on the ark. If this is true it could be that the world was
>  populated by people other than noach and his sons. 
 
See Breishis 9:19.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

     Ok reb Yitzchok, what is your email address.. Regards, 
     Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
     
That is why the Mishnoh says Asei L'cho Rav V'histaleik Min Hasofeik.
     
Kol Tuv
     
Yitzchok
     

My e-mail address is yzkd@aol.com.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok

I think there is a fine distinction to be made between changes in minhagim
in general, and changes in minhagim related to a particular community or
particular Rebbeim.  An example of the first type of minhag might be Shir
Hamalos on the aseres yemei teshuvah, Borchi Nafshi on Rosh Chodesh, etc.  A
nusach is a bigger deal -- what days to say selichos and which selichos to say,
does a shul observe Behab or Yom Kippur Katan, does it make a Minyan to lain
Devarim or say Tehillim Hoshanna Rabba, etc.  Once a shul has a nusach (davens
Nusach Ashkenaz, for instance), it should be difficult to
change it -- there have been many shuls I have been in where the rav differs
a different tefillah than the congregation.

     Ume ile v'lo kol eileh? <G>
     
     In other words,  COULD it be read that the slaves mixed in with Bnei 
     Noach and had no indpendent yichus??
     
     Rich Wolpoe
     
     
     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
     
> I saw today in the haemek davar Perek 7 Pasuk one that Noach had slaves
>  which he took on the ark. If this is true it could be that the world was 
>  populated by people other than noach and his sons. 
     
See Breishis 9:19.
     
Kol Tuv
     
Yitzchok
     

     Only if they survived!? <g>
     
     Regards,
     Rich


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


I saw today in the haemek davar Perek 7 Pasuk one that Noach had slaves 
which he took on the ark. If this is true it could be that the world was 
populated by people other than noach people to escape the flood. ELiE 
GiNSPARG
     
     

They both apply equally, if not more, to morality issues as to halachic
issues!

YGB

On Tue, 27 Oct 1998 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

>      how about the principles:
>      
>      sofeik d'oraiso lechumro?
>      
> Sakanto chomiro mei'issuro??
> 
> Regards,
> Richard Wolpoe
> 

YGB

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

To be honest, I was tiring of this thread, but at least it has nothing
to do with television or Yeshiva University!

R. YGB writes:

>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
>:-).

I agree that Hatam Sofer is a greater posek.  But I do not translate
that into ultimate authority on matters of the philosophy of Rambam.
You will probably disagree, what can I do? :)

> 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?

Simple, yes.  But totally unfounded.  You suggest, without any evidence
from any of the Rambam's voluminous writings, that Hakhmah Tiv'it is not
Torah in his eyes.  Indeed, the suggestion is flatly contradicted by
Rambam's own defintions of his terminology.

As noted before, Rambam explicitly defines ma'aseh bereshit as part of
Pardes.  Now look at Hil. Talmud Torah 1:12, where he defines Gemara as
including Pardes.   To summarize graphically (for those who came in
late):

Hil Yesodei ha-Torah 4:10: perek 3 and 4 (science discussion) are
ma'aseh bereshit
Hil Yesodei ha-Torah 4:13: Ma'aseh bereshit is part of Pardes
Hil Talmud Torah 1:12:  Pardes is part of Gemara

 Simple?  Yes.  Unless you contend that the Gemara is not part of Torah.

>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.

Please save your exclamation points.  Yes, that is what the Hatam Sofer
holds.  No that is not necessarily what the Rambam meant.   And, as I
have said before, even if we follow the Hatam Sofer's interpretation on
kiddush ha-Hodesh, it has no bearing on Hil. Yesodei ha-Torah.

Kol tuv,

Eli

>> this was after all a public roof accessible to virtually every 
>> student.  In an American court of law, would the yeshiva bin quesiton been 
>> liable had someone fallen off that roof?

> If it was actually used (not accessible) then it may be Chayov.  The
> possibility of liability in an American court of law is not the criteria of
> obligation Midoreisoh, that would be at most an Issue of Dinoh D'malchusoh
> Dinoh (if it applied in this case).

This is actually a point that I find interesting.  The Torah obligates a
ma'akeh because of the fear of falling, "ki yipol..."  Perhaps the extent to
which we should take precations IS defined by what society would consider
liability.  I nother words, how do we decide what is a risk that has to be
protected against, and what is beyond th escope of rational expectation.
While American law might be excessive in its attributing liability in many
situations, it could still be seen as a general yardstick by which to measure
this sort of chiyuv.

Eliyahu Teitz

     I once hear besheim an Odom Gadol (I forgot who) that the definition 
     of a tzaddik is one who worries about his own ruhcniyos and the other 
     person's gashmiyus...
     
     Regards,
     Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

They both apply equally, if not more, to morality issues as to halachic 
issues!
     
YGB
     

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
> 
> >From this week's Jerusalem Post, quoting a featured speaker at the
> "Religious Zionism and Modern Orthodoxy" Conference at Ramat Rachel:
> 
> "There are women I know who are Orthodox in every way, and ask rabbis
> questions on every issue but this one [women's issues]. It is so close to
> their heart that they are willing to pioneer a breakthrough - not only to
> stretch the Halacha, but actually go beyond it.
> 
> "If women preserve the boundaries on every issue but this one, and go
> a little beyond it here, we will remain within the Orthodox camp. If we go
> beyond the boundaries in every area, that is a diffirent story."
> 
> Is this aveirah lishma or plain aveirah?
> 
> YGB

I risk being pilloried at the following:

The idea that one can violate even one halacha, even slightly, is 
incompatible with the Torah.  That would be like saying "I'm am a tzadik 
L'Chol Hatorah Kula except for the fact that I eat cheeseburgers".  
Obvously, no one would consider such a person a halachik Jew. Such a 
mumar would likely be considered a Mumar L'Taiavon. The question in the 
case of women's issues is, since these women want to serve G-d, would 
violating halacha be an aveirah L'shmah? I believe the answer lies in 
the ultimate motivating factor. Obviously, we are talking about serious 
women who feel that participating as men would, in their own tefiloh 
betzibur gives them a hightened sense of Kedushas Hashem.  And to the 
extent that one feels a greater connectionn to G-d then it is OK or even 
preferable to do the mitzvah by violating Halacha. But, eventhough this 
motivation is real and felt by the women that are doing it, I don't 
believe that this is the underlying factor in the motivation.  I 
sicerely believe that the underlying factor is the "false god" of the 
"Radical Femminist Movement", a movement that has gone beyond the bounds 
of equality of OPPORTUNITY of the sexes.  This was a legitimate goal and 
one which I still support. But today the feminist movement goes way 
beyond this definition to the point where they want to totally eliminate 
even physical differences from considered. I believe that some orthodox 
jewish feminists have been infected with this "ideal" and have become so 
radicalized, that they have placed feminism above the Torah, which 
clearly defines the role of Jewish Women. These women are against the 
very concept of "Roles" for women and want to blur the differences. They 
have invaded the domain of men's mitzvos to do so. Our mothers and 
grandmothers (going all the way back to Sinai) did not have women's 
Tfilah groups and did not feel the need to go beyond the pale of halacha 
to acheive Dveikus.  Were they stupid?  Are we of the modern era so 
superior in intelligence that we now understand the importance of 
Women's tfila groups and the need to violate halacha in this regard, and 
our ancestors didn't?  Clearly not.

"Gadol Hametzuva Ve'Oseh MishehaAino Metzveh VeOseh" tells us that a 
greater reward is acheived by one who is comanded to do the mitzvah and 
does it, than by one who was not comanded to do it, and does it.  Why? 
Because the obligation (i.e. yoke) gives us trepidation about doing it 
or else suffer the consequenses of Onesh! Because of this we often don't 
think of the positive side, i.e. the dveykus to G-d one may acheive by 
doing a mitzvas aseh. When an Aino Metzuveh does a Mitzvah, they get 
less credit. Why? Because they don't have the yoke and therefore 
trepidation and can concentrate on the Dveykus one acheives (knowing 
that even if they don't, there will be no negative consequenses.) 
Perhaps that's why men consider Tfila b'tzibur a burdon rather than an 
uplifting experience. And, perhaps that is why hese women consider the 
idea of Tfila B'tzibur such an important component of Dveykus. 

But I still believe that the underlying motivation (perhaps 
subliminally)of women's Tefilah groups, eventhough these women are 
L'shmah, is the Radical feminist ideal. As such, the aveirah L'Shma 
aspect gets wiped out.  The violating of Halacha in avodas hashem on a 
feminist issue puts one outside the camp of Torah Judaism. 

HM

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


[ 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 ]