Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 200

Friday, September 3 1999

• Re: definition of BT
• insider/outsider
• kiddushei ta'ut
• Re: Fwd: mishaneh (was midgets or et sheker sofrim?)
• R"RJHendel's fan
• Re: Avodah V3 #195
• Re: Olam Habba -- and the Non-Jew
• kiddushei ta'ut
• feeding infants outside the succah
• Lubavitch does it again
• Re: Lubavitch does it again
• Pre-Midnight Selichos...
• Re: Inconsistant Symbolism
• Re: Lubavitch does it again
• Re: Lubavitch does it again (2)
• Definition of Ba'al Teshuva (was Eit Sheker Sofrim)
• Re: Definition of Ba'al Teshuva (was Eit Sheker Sofrim)
• Re: Toward a Definition of Psak (was: of Chumra)
• Ashirah Lashem
• Re: Definition of Ba'al Teshuva (was Eit Sheker Sofrim)

In Avodah 3#199, YGBechoffer wrote:
> Alright, so let us discuss this point (appropriate for the season!)
separate from the DNB issue. Is the term "Ba'al Teshuva" as applied today
appropriate or not? Perhaps some of the individuals known collectively as
"Ba'alei Teshuva" should really be called "Mevakshei Emes" (or, "members
of the Aishdas Society" :-) ), which would then be a category to which all
Ovdei Hashem should seek affiliation? <
Flippancy aside, I believe DNadoff passed on enough food for thought re the
definition of the term in an article quoted in the 3#194 digest.
Grasshopper/midget that I am, I am only familiar, out of all the quoted
sources, with RaMBaM Hilchos T'shuvah, but even that one source provides an
answer: we all can be/are/have been BT, and one needn't be a member of this
esteemed list or of AishDas to become one.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

Just a comment that the defintions of gadol/insider are vague.
Some specific examples might be Rav Gustman and Rav Perel (sp?)
both of whom were gedolim but not insiders.

Eli Turkel

A couple of months ago, Rabbi Michael Broyde and others discussed kiddushei
ta'ut.  Since then, he and others of the Beth Din of America ("BDA") (a.k.a.
the RCA bet din) signed a letter (which may be found at
http://www.thejewishweek.com/jwcurr.exe?99032635 )disagreeing with the
Rackman bet din and setting forth arguments as to why he is wrong.  Rabbi
Rackman responded with a piece
(http://www.thejewishweek.com/jwcurr.exe?99032637) rebutting their
arguments.  I wasn't impressed with much of what he wrote, but the following
paragraphs are probably his strongest points.  Does anyone have any
responses to his arguments?  Also, where are Rav Moshe's tshuvot regarding
the person who converted to Catholicism and the person who robbed the gas
station?
<<Rabbi Emanuel Rackman
24 Kislev, 5759 
December 14, 1998
<snip>
We argued in the Jewish Week that kiddushei ta'ut applies when a defect in
the groom, unknown at the time of marriage, is later revealed. In this
regard we could not ignore the Talmudic presumption that a woman would
prefer to be married to anyone than to be alone, and it is here that we
relied on Rav Moshe Feinstein's observation that the Talmudic presumption
would apply to only a small minority of economically desperate women, and
Rav Yitzchok Elchanan's suspension of the presumption. The B.D.A. appears
not to disagree. 
The major criticism leveled at our bet din is that "in opposition to Rabbi
Feinstein, [we apply] the concept of kiddushei ta'ut to potential defects
which are not yet manifested at the time of marriage." We are said to be in
error because "improper behavior by a party in a marriage (such as
psychological abuse, adultery, sexual molestation, etc.) cannot be assumed
to have been present earlier in the form of 'seeds'." 
But the B.D.A. has an obvious problem. Rabbi Feinstein annulled a marriage
when a husband converted to Catholicism and refused to give his wife a get.
How can the B.D.A. square this with its pronouncement that Rabbi Feinstein
never applied the concept of kiddushei ta'ut to potential defects which were
not yet manifest at the time of marriage? Quite deftly, the B.D.A.
characterizes that case as one of "hidden apostasy." An obvious
contradiction to its position is explained away by deciding that the husband
in that case must have had "seeds" all along. 
Another of Rabbi Feinstein's cases in which he annulled a marriage involved
a husband who was serving a life sentence for having committed a murder
while robbing a gas station, and who decided that his wife should suffer
along with him. One can only surmise that the B.D.A. somehow knows that, at
the time of that marriage, the husband had a secret desire to murder a gas
station attendant. Apparently, it is only in our cases, involving defects
such as psychological abuse, sexual molestation, etc., that "it cannot be
assumed" that the defects were "present earlier in the form of 'seeds'."5 
Quite apart from the B.D.A.'s self-proclaimed expertise in determining which
defects are latent and which are acquired only after marriage, there is
today abundant data supporting our contention that men who abuse and torment
their wives may have character defects that developed in their formative
years, prior to marriage. Men who physically and psychologically abuse their
wives fit certain profiles and patterns of dysfunctional personalities. In
his teshuva on impotence, Rabbi Feinstein himself relied on physicians for
determination of the pre-existing defect. Is there any reason why mental
health expertise should not similarly be relied upon for an understanding of
pre-existing personality defects (most of which research concerning the
nature, extent and diagnosis of spouse abuse having been undertaken and
published after Rabbi Feinstein's death)? >>

You left out a significant source you must deal with in this regard: The
changes made *in translation* by the seventy elders in the Targum
Ha'Shiv'im.

(I believe the Rambam writes in a letter to one of the R's Ibn Tibbon -
others on this list are doubtless more familiar with it than me - that
every translation is in essence an interpretation (Artscrollese: 
"Elucidation"), and must be treated as such (i.e., not to translate
punctillulously literally). A translation should be treated by the reader
as such, and, realizing such, be aware that in any event the meaning of
the author is likely obscured, distorted, or misinterpreted. This is
particulary true of a nuanced language like Hebrew.) 

Again, however, those three little dots are always useful...

YGB

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

R"RJHendel asks:

>QUESTION 1: Water operated fan
==========================
>I bring a water run fan to a water fall. The water falls, spins 
>a wheel, which generates a circular motion which runs a fan
>(which keeps me cool). My question is WHAT BIBLICAL
>ISSUR IF ANY IS THERE (There is probably a Rabbinic
>issur of using complex utensils (like riding a bicycle to those
>who prohibit it). 

Are a water wheel, shaft and fan blades so complex?
I think not.  I'll explain with a ma'aseh sheh-haya.
Some years ago I asked Rabbi Levi Yitzhak Halperin, the head of the Institute for 
Science and Halakha in Jerusalem a series of questions. 

1.  Can I take a sheet of cardboard or a hand fan and fan myself to keep cool on 
Shabbat?  Answer: Yes.

2. Instead of 1, above, I take fan blades on a shaft with a crank handle connected to 
the  end of the shaft. On Shabbat I turn the crank to cool myself.
Answer, after a long smile: Permissible

3.  Instead of 2, above, I take the fan blades on a shaft and mount a small water wheel 
instead of the crank handle. On Shabbat, I place the wheel under the faucet, open the 
faucet and cool myself. Note that, in 2, I supplied the power to turn the fan. In 3, I only 
arrange for the water to supply the power.
Answer, after a grin:  I refuse to answer the question. 

(I should have pointed out that I have been a technical adviser to R' Halperin and close 
friend for nearly thirty years so, the answer was not to be taken seriously.) 

4. Why do you refuse?
Answer:  Because I know the next question!

As I mentioned in a previous posting re: R'Moshe, one can learn much from the jokes 
of a talmid chakham.  The next question I would have asked was, of course, to replace 
the wheel with a motor and the water with electric current.

In my series of questions, the devices described were gradually getting more 
complicated.  At some point, the device is sufficiently complicated that one can 
consider that there has been a tikkun kli, a creative act rather than the use of existing 
things in an interesting or effective manner.  Where is that point?  When we can no 
longer see a group of simple parts acting together but rather one new utensil. 
Question three is close to the border, not yet over it. The unasked next question was 
over the border.

The point can be seen from the Bet Yitzhak who compared connecting electrical 
devices to Molid Reyach.  Opening a perfume bottle to allow the fragrance to  spread 
in the air is not molid reyach.  Pouring perfume on the hand or the table and causing 
fragrance is not molid reyach. Placing perfume on a beged is molid reyach.  In all three 
cases one smells the same fragrance.  In the first two, there is no creative act. In the 
third there is. The perfume was absorbed and vanished. The non-fragrant beged is 
also no longer in existence.  A new fragrant garment has been created. As Rashi says 
(Betza 23), "sheh-molid davar chadash". I like to compare with taking Na and Cl, a 
metal and a gas, and when put together they both vanish and we suddenly have salt.

So I would think that your fan is not prohibited, but beware the next step of complexity.

>PS: I leave the question of bar da'as and bar chiyuvah to others. I'd be
>interested by the discussion. I do know that most of the children we are
>speaking of are capable of doing many, if not most mitzvos. And many with
>Downs can teach us much about ahavas haBorei and avodah bisimchah ubileiv
>shaleim.


The Chasam Sofer in his Teshuvos says that it is absolutely unacceptable to
place someone in the category of a shoteh in a non Jewish setting where he
will eat  neveilos etc.

Avraham

I was catching up on (very old) Avodahs and came across this:

In message , Yzkd@aol.com writes
>The Rambam writes that to be considered "Chassidei Umos H'olom" they must do 
>the 7 Mitzvohs because Hashem said so thru Moshe, logical and emotional 
>reasons will not count, do you have any source in Poskim that disagree?
>

I can't quote you a direct source, but suggest we may learn this
indirectly.

As well as this statement of the Rambam, the Rambam also holds that to
be a ger toshav a non Jew must make a declaration in front of beis din
(even b'zman hazeh) accepting the sheva mitzvos bnei noach, and that
given that a beis din is not permitted to accept the making of such a
declaration except in the time of Yovel (which everybody agrees to),
there could be no such concept of a ger toshav b'zman haze.

Rav Hertzog discusses this Rambam in "Tchuka l'yisrael al pi haTorah"
2nd Chapter, gimmel, and cites the Ra'avad and the Kesef Mishna as
disagreeing and holding that today, you can have a ger toshav, just that
you do not need a declaration in front of beis din to be a ger toshav
except in Yovel.  Rather, to be a ger toshav, they just need to keep the
sheva mitzvas bene noach - after which we do not protest their presence
in Eretz Yisroel. On the basis of these two disagreeing opinions, Rav
Hertzog poskens that b'zman hazeh certainly the Muslim Arabs fit within
the definition of ger toshav.  There are of course a whole bunch of
practical nafka minas in halacha, the most obvious one being the one
referred to above, about presence in and use of the land, but a lot of
others as well (supporting, treifos etc).

Now, if the Ra'avad and the Kesef Mishna disagree with the Rambam with
regard to the need for a positive declaration before beis din, and hold
that people who keep the sheva mitzvas bnei noach without such a
declaration are within the category of ger toshav (with all the
practical halachic ramifications that that involves), it would seem
likely that they would also hold that such people can be considered
"Chassidei Umos H'olom"  without needing to be performing them because
HaShem said so through Moshe.  That is, the common theme within the
Rambam is that you need a "Jewish link", for a non Jew to really be
considered to be keeping the sheva mitsvos bnei noach.  While it would
seem that the others see the issue of beis din acceptance and the
inherent status of the people as separate - when Jews have full
sovereignty over the land, as indicated by yovel, to be a ger toshav
requires beis din declaration.  When it does not, mere performing of the
mitzvos is sufficient, and people whom we know do keep the sheva mitvos
bnei noach, but not for the reasons of the Rambam, are entitled to such
a status  

>Gut Shabbos V'Kol Tuv
>
>Yitzchok Zirkind
>

Ksiva v'chasima tova

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

(I am sending this a second time because the first time it doesn't seem to
have gone through.)
> A couple of months ago, Rabbi Michael Broyde and others discussed
> kiddushei ta'ut.  Since then, he and others of the Beth Din of America
> ("BDA") (a.k.a. the RCA bet din) signed a letter (which may be found at
> http://www.thejewishweek.com/jwcurr.exe?99032635 )disagreeing with the
> Rackman bet din and setting forth arguments as to why he is wrong.  Rabbi
> Rackman responded with a piece
> (http://www.thejewishweek.com/jwcurr.exe?99032637) rebutting their
> arguments.  I wasn't impressed with much of what he wrote, but the
> following paragraphs are probably his strongest points.  Does anyone have
> any responses to his arguments?  Also, where are Rav Moshe's tshuvot
> regarding the person who converted to Catholicism and the person who
> robbed the gas station?
Kol tuv,
Moshe

> <<Rabbi Emanuel Rackman
> 24 Kislev, 5759 
> December 14, 1998
> <snip>
> We argued in the Jewish Week that kiddushei ta'ut applies when a defect in
> the groom, unknown at the time of marriage, is later revealed. In this
> regard we could not ignore the Talmudic presumption that a woman would
> prefer to be married to anyone than to be alone, and it is here that we
> relied on Rav Moshe Feinstein's observation that the Talmudic presumption
> would apply to only a small minority of economically desperate women, and
> Rav Yitzchok Elchanan's suspension of the presumption. The B.D.A. appears
> not to disagree. 
> The major criticism leveled at our bet din is that "in opposition to Rabbi
> Feinstein, [we apply] the concept of kiddushei ta'ut to potential defects
> which are not yet manifested at the time of marriage." We are said to be
> in error because "improper behavior by a party in a marriage (such as
> psychological abuse, adultery, sexual molestation, etc.) cannot be assumed
> to have been present earlier in the form of 'seeds'." 
> But the B.D.A. has an obvious problem. Rabbi Feinstein annulled a marriage
> when a husband converted to Catholicism and refused to give his wife a
> get. How can the B.D.A. square this with its pronouncement that Rabbi
> Feinstein never applied the concept of kiddushei ta'ut to potential
> defects which were not yet manifest at the time of marriage? Quite deftly,
> the B.D.A. characterizes that case as one of "hidden apostasy." An obvious
> contradiction to its position is explained away by deciding that the
> husband in that case must have had "seeds" all along. 
> Another of Rabbi Feinstein's cases in which he annulled a marriage
> involved a husband who was serving a life sentence for having committed a
> murder while robbing a gas station, and who decided that his wife should
> suffer along with him. One can only surmise that the B.D.A. somehow knows
> that, at the time of that marriage, the husband had a secret desire to
> murder a gas station attendant. Apparently, it is only in our cases,
> involving defects such as psychological abuse, sexual molestation, etc.,
> that "it cannot be assumed" that the defects were "present earlier in the
> form of 'seeds'."5 
> Quite apart from the B.D.A.'s self-proclaimed expertise in determining
> which defects are latent and which are acquired only after marriage, there
> is today abundant data supporting our contention that men who abuse and
> torment their wives may have character defects that developed in their
> formative years, prior to marriage. Men who physically and psychologically
> abuse their wives fit certain profiles and patterns of dysfunctional
> personalities. In his teshuva on impotence, Rabbi Feinstein himself relied
> on physicians for determination of the pre-existing defect. Is there any
> reason why mental health expertise should not similarly be relied upon for
> an understanding of pre-existing personality defects (most of which
> research concerning the nature, extent and diagnosis of spouse abuse
> having been undertaken and published after Rabbi Feinstein's death)? >>

Rabbi Simcha Bunim Cohen notes in his book "Children in Halachah" (an
excellent book, which I highly recommend especially for the copious Hebrew
footnotes and because he generally tells you of both stringent and lenient
opinions) that technically it is forbidden only to put treif food into the
hands ("safinan leh be-yada'im")  of a child under the age of chinuch, but
there is no prohibition if the child picks up the food with his own hands.
The prohibition of putting a forbidden food into a child's hands derives
from the pasuk "lo tochloom" (which deals with the eating of a rodent),
which the rabbis in Yevamot 114 explained as "lo ta'achilum"--you shall not
feed [foods] to them [i.e., to children].  This prohibition is expanded to
apply to directly causing a child to violate *any* prohibition.  See
generally Shulchan Arukh O.C. 343.  For an extremely thorough discussion of
this issue see Yabia Omer III, Y.D. siman 3 seif katan 3 ff.

Question: Rabbi SB Cohen (in a footnote) cites achronim including the
Mishnah Brurah who state that you cannot put food into an infant's hands
outside the succah on Succot because you directly cause him to violate an
issur.  He points out that the solution is to place the food in front of the
infant.  I have not noticed people doing this, and I would believe this to
be impractical for a small infant (who does not feed himself) or for one who
is breast-feeding.  I did notice that in a footnote (i.e. Har'rei Kodesh) to
Mikra'ei Kodesh (the main text to which is cited to in Children in Halacha)
the author suggests that lo ta'achilum should not apply to abrogation of
mitzvot aseh, just to violations of lo ta'asehs (as I recall [but I saw this
a few weeks ago], because all the limudim of lo ta'achilum deal with lo
ta'sehs, and because lo ta'asehs are an issur cheftzah while an issur aseh
is an issur gavrah, which should not apply to infants).  Rav Ovadia Yosef,
supra, seems to agree that lo ta'achilum should apply only to issur
cheftzah, and this is the understanding he has for the position of the
Rashba that there is no problem of safinan leh be-yada'im for an issur
d'rabbanan, which might only be an issur gavrah.  Any views on this issue?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

I'm looking at the local Jerusalem newspaper, dumbfounded. The Meshichist
faction of Chabad just crossed the red line of mutar and assur. Here's my
literal transliteration of their advert:

(Giant letters) RIBONO SHEL OLAM
(Large letters) Anu lo rotzim et gan ha'eden shelcha
                velo et ha'olam ha'ba shelcha
                anu rotzim otcha ha'rabi milubavitch
                MELECH MALCHEI HAMLACHIM, HAKDOSH BARUCH HU

(then there's the usual yechi adoneinu ..)

How are we supposed to react to this ?

Josh

On Fri, 3 Sep 1999 BACKON@vms.huji.ac.il wrote: 

> I'm looking at the local Jerusalem newspaper, dumbfounded. The
> Meshichist faction of Chabad just crossed the red line of mutar and
> assur. Here's my literal transliteration of their advert: 
> 
> (Giant letters) RIBONO SHEL OLAM
> (Large letters) Anu lo rotzim et gan ha'eden shelcha
>                 velo et ha'olam ha'ba shelcha
>                 anu rotzim otcha ha'rabi milubavitch
>                 MELECH MALCHEI HAMLACHIM, HAKDOSH BARUCH HU
> 
> (then there's the usual yechi adoneinu ..) 
> 
> How are we supposed to react to this ? 
> 

An issue all Avodah members can agree on, I hope :-).

By branding it as heresy and avoda zara, how else?

YGB

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

....continue to proliferate at ever greater rates with ever less
embarassement and ever more publicity each year. A sign of the times. Sad.

YGB

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

> 
> What commonality exists between mun, lechem hapanim and korbanos that
we're
> trying to embody in the way we eat challah each week?

Probably the concept of mishulchan gavoah kazachu which in the symbolic
sense is one of the central themes of shabbas.

Avraham 
 

--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> By branding it as heresy and avoda zara, how else?

According on Ramo OC 156, based on Tosafot in Sanhedrin 63b (but
disagreed with by the Nodah B'yehudah), bnei noach were not mzuveh in
shituf.  (For a lengthy discussion of this, see Y'chaveh Da'at 4:45.)
 Query: according to this position, would Jews who do shituf be
guilty of avodah zara, or just that it's assur for them (off the top
of my head, based on the pasuk "bilti laShem l'vado")?

Kol tuv,
Moshe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

To answer my own question:
Looking at the Y'chaveh Da'at 4:45, it seems that at least the Binyan
Tzion 1:63 considered shituf to be actual avodah zara if done by
Jews.  Also the Sho'el U'meishiv (tinyana 1:51) says that Jews,
unlike b'nei noach, were commanded "anochi" and "lo yih'ye" and
therefore are forbidden in shituf; sounds like real avodah zara.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

In Avodah 3#199, YGBechoffer wrote:

>Alright, so let us discuss this point (appropriate for the season!) >separate from the DNB issue. Is the term "Ba'al Teshuva" as applied >today appropriate or not? Perhaps some of the individuals known >collectively as "Ba'alei Teshuva" should really be called "Mevakshei >Emes" (or, "members of the Aishdas Society" :-) ), which would then >be a category to which all Ovdei Hashem should seek affiliation? 

I have already argued at length in prior postings that the term ba'al teshuva as applied today is consistent with how its used by chazal and rishonim. The only reservation one might have about the use of the term is that ba'alus (or bailus, for the yeshivish among us) almost always suggests ownership/mastery and few, if any, can claim to have mastered
and fully achieved teshuva. From this perspective, ba'al teshuva describes a nearly
unattainable ideal towards which we must always strive. Nevertheless, the key concept
is still teshuva, and if we have scruples about indiscriminate use of the ba'alus
concept, perhaps we should refer to chozrim bitshuva rather than ba'alay teshuva. Personally, I'm still o.k. with ba'al teshuva. In no event would I switch to a term that does not include the word teshuva.

Also, I think all ovday Hashem should seek inclusion among the ranks
of ba'alay teshuva.

Ksiva vchasima tova
David.

From http://www.aishdas.org/asp/unsanehTokef.html (written by myself):
: Teshuvah -- a return. The UK Chief Rabbi, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks shlit"a,
: likens this to all the waves of immigrants to Israel. The Yemenites, the
: Morrocans, the Russians and the Ethiopians. They stepped off the plane to a
: land they never saw before, and suddenly "we are home". Teshuvah is return
: to a religious home. Even if you've never been there before.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287      MMG"H for  3-Sep-99: Shishi, Nitzavim-Vayeilech
micha@aishdas.org                                     A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                Pisachim 32b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.     Haftorah

Carl M. Sherer <csherer@netvision.net.il> writes in v3n197:
:                                     That is NOT to say that I will 
: necessarily act in accordance with my clear interest. For example, 
: one of the things I have heard from several people who pasken 
: ksomim is that people who do not ask shailas tend to be too 
: machmir because they are afraid of making a mistake.

Viewed another way, I think this is in accordance with their clear interest.
They are interested in playing safe without the embarassment of asking the
sh'ailah. And this gives them a way to do so.

I make this point because from this perspective the "Chumrah of the Month Club"
and Conservative Judaism aren't all that far apart. In both cases people are
seeking a particular answer from halachah and will even follow a da'as yachid
if it gives them the opportunity to do so. If the chumros are even mostly
but impurely lisheim Shamayim that is Conservativism.

: It does according to both shitos I cited above unless he is totally 
: wrong (toeh bidvar mishna), or, according to the second shita, if a 
: greater sage or a majority of sages says otherwise.

Using the definitions the Rambam assumes in Hil T"T, to'eh bidvar mishnah means
that he made a mistake in established halachah. In distinction, a d'var gemara
would be that the poseik drew a mistaken inference from the established
halachah.

In v3n99 he writes:
: So I think that R. Eidensohn and R. Berger are both correct. R. 
: Kaplan was not recognized as a Gadol by most people during his 
: lifetime. But I think that's because his lifetime was too short, and 
: that two generations from now he may well be looked upon as one 
: of the Gdolim of this generation.

Other factors are:

1- He didn't have a Yeshiva. It appears that Roshei Yeshiva and Chassidishe
Rabbeim usually rise to that acceptance. It's much hard working from other
tracks.

2- R' Kaplan wasn't a poseik of renown. We tend to recognize people who are
great in halachah far more readily than people whose greatness is in the
aggadic areas.

Also, I don't think I made myself fully understood when I spoke of gadlus being
non-boolean. Someone who is greater than me is more likely to be correct for two
reasons: he has more data to work with; his conjectures and extrapolations are
more shaped by Torah than mine. The second factor is IMHO a major part of the
definition of "Da'as Torah", and gives anyone who is beyond me in learning
more authority than his footnotes. Therefore any person who is greater than me
by any amount carries corresponding weight -- and it isn't just linearly. He
needn't be "a gadol" to have relative gedulah.

Therefore, if I find an idea in R' Frand's Parashah Sheet it makes sense for
me to work with the assumption that both factors went into play, and therefore
it's likely to be correct (to get technical: "to be *a* correct position").
Problems I find with the idea really need to be explored before considering
any of them to be an upshlug.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  3-Sep-99: Shishi, Nitzavim-Vayeilech
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 32b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Thanks to all of your help, I feel comfortable taking the label "beta" off
of Ashira Lashem. The Elul 21 5759 edition (check the date on the cover) is
available from the AishDas web site at:
		http://www.aishdas.org/siddur.shtml
There are instructions on the site for printing it as a booklet.

(For those who are new to Avodah, this is a Friday Night siddur based on
a reconstruction of the nusach of RYB Soloveitchik. Every sh'va na and
kamatz katan (lishitas haGra) are indicated. The commentary is my own (largely
drawn from RSRH and RYBS), and reflects those kavanos I have found meaningful
in my own tephillah. There are appendices on Birchas Avos and the first Perek
of Sh'ma.)

Much thanks in particular to Michael Poppers, Claude Schochet and Akiva Miller
who spent the time to make itemized lists of corrections and suggestions. In
RMP's case, pages and pages of them! And I'm sure they aren't quite done,
either. But then, ein ladavar sof.

This is not to say the project is done. First, I'm sure I'll continue to get
useful feedback. Also, as I fall in love with other divrei Torah, they'll make
their way into the footnotes. I'd like to understand kaddish well enough for
a third appendix. And last, someday, after some other projects get to this
point, I'd like to make it a complete siddur.

-mi

PS: Rishus is granted, and consider this an invitation/request to tell people
by email, run off copies for friends, etc...

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  3-Sep-99: Shishi, Nitzavim-Vayeilech
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 32b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Perhaps I did not make my point clear.

If we all should be Ba'alei Teshuva - as one might correctly argue - then
should a new sociological/definitional term be found for a segment of
society that, for various reasons, is distinctive?

Furthermore, just as the Eskimos (case in point, who prefer to be called,
I believe, Inuit) have many words for different types of snow, perhaps
there should be - and I believe RAEK in his remarks was refelcting this
idea - different terms to describe people who differ in where they hav
come from and where they are going.

Are "Ba'al Teshuva" and "Oved Hashem" synonymous?

On Fri, 3 Sep 1999 david.nadoff@bfkpn.com wrote:

> I have already argued at length in prior postings that the term ba'al
> teshuva as applied today is consistent with how its used by chazal and
> rishonim. The only reservation one might have about the use of the term
> is that ba'alus (or bailus, for the yeshivish among us) almost always
> suggests ownership/mastery and few, if any, can claim to have mastered
> and fully achieved teshuva. From this perspective, ba'al teshuva
> describes a nearly unattainable ideal towards which we must always
> strive. Nevertheless, the key concept is still teshuva, and if we have
> scruples about indiscriminate use of the ba'alus concept, perhaps we
> should refer to chozrim bitshuva rather than ba'alay teshuva.
> Personally, I'm still o.k. with ba'al teshuva. In no event would I
> switch to a term that does not include the word teshuva. 
> 
> Also, I think all ovday Hashem should seek inclusion among the ranks of
> ba'alay teshuva. 
> 
> Ksiva vchasima tova
> David.
> 
> 

YGB

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

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]