Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 275

Tuesday, January 11 2000

• Re: standing for choson
• Re: Atarah
• Re: ATTN legal eagles
• sadigora
• Re: Kavanah and Shelo Asani Isha
• Yibbum vs. haliza in Israel
• status of oral psak
• Re: status of oral psak
• Re: status of oral psak

On 11 Jan 00, at 0:48, sadya n targum wrote:

> Carl Sherer writes, "When I went to a wedding in the States six weeks
> ago, I almost forgot to stand for the Chosson and Kallah because I had
> not seen it done in so long."
> 
> It is my recollection that  the minhag of standing for choson and kallah
> (a) is only about 20 years old, and (b) is apparently unique to
> America--I haven't seen it practiced in Israel at the few weddings I've
> attended there. I have been searching for a valid reason for it.  

Perhaps I should have mentioned that I grew up in the US and now 
live in Israel....

In any event, I always thought that the practice was universal 
except in Israel where NO ONE usually sits for the Chupa (they 
don't even bother to put out chairs at many weddings here).

I have only attended weddings in the US, Canada and Israel so I 
don't have much of a point of comparison. Maybe people who have 
attended weddings elsewhere can comment on the universality of 
the custom? Or maybe someone can send me a ticket to a 
wedding in another country :-) 

-- Carl 


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

----- Original Message -----
> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:30:10 -0500 (EST)
> From: Kenneth Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> Subject: re: Atarah
[del]

> In defense of those who do have such an atarah, I offer
the following:
>
> (1) A silver atarah helps prevent the tallis from falling
off one's head
> during the Shemoneh Esray, and whatever other parts of the
davening that it
> is worn up.
>
> (2) Just as one might wear a nicer shirt on Shabbos than
on weekdays, an
> atarah can make his Shabbos tallis nicer than his weekday
tallis.
>
> (3) In a recent discussion on similar matters, at least
one poster wrote
> that he keeps his esrog in a plain cardboard box, because
the box is not
> part of the mitzva, so there is no logic in beautfying it.
But for those who
> do go out of their way to have a nice esrog box, a silver
atarah can
> similarly beautify the tallis.
>
> Thanks again for all the responses.
>
> Akiva Miller


There is one more defense:

After having purchased a new Talit one year, a new Talit bag
another, Shu"t Rav Feinstein another and so-on and so-forth,
I found myself one Erev Rosh HaShana looking for a gift for
my husband, something that had what can be termed
"Yiddische" meaning -- so I bought him an silver Atara and
sewed it on.

<G>

It was either that or a new white-on-white Sephardi
embroidered Kittel, but I needed his cooporation for this
(measurements) (and it takes a few months to make) and I did
want it to be a surprise. <g>

Shoshana L. Boublil

----- Original Message ----- > Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000
14:20:14 -0500
> From: Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil
> Subject: Re: ATTN legal eagles
>
> Still would like to hear from any resident israeli lawyers
or otherwise
> knowledgeable individuals re the state (or not) if any
yibbums in israel,
> whether sepharadi or ashkenazi.  does the public law
outlawing yibbum also
> apply to unmarrieds who both want it, if so does it happen
anyway?


In Israel, Ashkenazim do not permit Yibum.  Sephardim and
Teimanim do.
This doesn't mean that they encourage it, just that I have
read Piskei Din where they have allowed it.  One must note
that it is rare.

For examples you can look up the Piskei Din Rabbaniyim
(PD"R) that appear in BIU Shu"t project CD.

Shoshana L. Boublil
(I am not a legal eagle.  My husband is an expert in family
law in Israel -- incl. Agunot and Chalitzah issues).

> 
> I am not sure how they (Sadigor) are doing these days, though I was under the vague
> impression that they were actually a pretty successful group in the present
> era- somewhere in the tel aviv area -

They are in North Tel Aviv (though the Rhyzn yeshiva in in Jerusalem).
I have been there only a few times but ut seems to be flourishing.

Eli Turkel

In message , Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes
>About women being mechuyavos bitifillah... My understanding is that they are
>not mechuyavos in any particular matbei'ah. Therefore, saying "Modah ani"
>(no, I didn't mean "ModEH") daily might be sufficient.
>

Here are two responses I wrote on this subject for Beis-midrash, but of
course it was beyond their byte limit and never got published (it
diverges somewhat, as the topic under discussion was slightly different,
but I think it makes it clear that the position you cite is very much a
minority opinion).

Kind Regards

Chana

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I get Bais-Medrish as a digest, and so there has clearly been a lot of
back and forth on the subject before I saw the discussion - but there
are a number of fairly unusual statements being bandied around - I have
limited myself to those that pertain to the question at hand:

In message <199909281701.NAA19290@gila.torah.org>, Bais-Medrash <owner-
bais-medrash@torah.org> "Rachamim & Henya" <phenya@post.tau.ac.il>
writes:
>Since davening is voluntary without having to make haste, Gershon suggested
>that women should pray in the order the Siddur was written and not rush. My
>chevrutha, Rabbi Shlomo Mimran holds differently and suggests since it is
>Mitzvah to daven on time that a woman should grab the mitzvah and pray the
>Shema and Shemonah Esray so as to earn the full mitzvah.


>From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> writes
>I think a request for sources, for their being a mitzvah for women to
>daven on time, is not out of order.

David Barak <davidbarak@usa.net> writes:
>Just to clear up the issue - women are Torah-obligated to pray daily.
>That's it. 

While this is indeed the position of the Rambam (Hilchos Tephila 1:1),
in relation to the Amida, this is not the way the Mishna Brura or the
Aruch HaShulchan holds.  The relevant discussion in Orech Chaim, siman
106.  See ois daled in the Mishna Brura 5,6, and 7 in the Aruch
HaShulchan.  Rather the Mishna Brura holds that women are chayav to
daven twice a day (Shachris and Mincha) and the Aruch HaShulchan three
times a day.  The reasoning of the Mishna Brura is that the chachamim
only made Shachris and Mincha obligatory, and Ma'ariv was reshus, it
just became obligatory because it was taken on by all Israel.  The
Mishna Brura holds that since women never took it on, it remains
optional for them, while the Aruch HaShulchan, presumably, holds that
when it was taken on by all Israel, that included obligating the women.

The fact that most women do not daven in this manner is excused by the
Magan Avraham on the grounds of this Rambam, but in the words of the
Mishna Brura, the majority of poskim do not hold this way, and one must
admonish women to pray the Shmonei Esrei.

>The specific exemption of women from positive time-bound
>commandments was set up with prayer times in mind. Part of the rationale of
>the Rabbis in not obligating women to the fixed prayers was that they must
>be m'hoshesh about children, and that is a higher obligation. If women were
>obligated to recite fixed prayers at fixed times, they would not be able to
>fulfill both their prayer obligations and their child- raising obligations.
>

While this is the commonally asserted reason for exemptions from
positive time bound mitvahs, it is not very well sourced.   It is
dangerous to say X is "the" reason for a Torah exemption.  Just as it is
inappropriate to say "the" reason that the Torah forbad eating pork is
because it was often diseased in those times, likewise one should not
give a reason for the exemption of women unless it is adequately sourced
(not to say there is not some achronic speculation to this effect, but
there are other tamei mitzvot also given, which should be given equal
consideration).


>From: "Rachamim & Henya" <phenya@post.tau.ac.il>
>I spoke to Rabbi Shlomo Mimran today and he told me his sources. He first
>clarified a point and that is if and only if the woman has the free time in
>the morning to daven Shema and Shemona Esray on time - not at the expense
>of others. The Gemara in Baba Kama (sorry no daf ref.) says " Gadol mi
>shemitzuveh v'osheh may mi she anno mitzuveh v'osheh" = greater is the
>(reward) for one who is commanded and performs than for one who is not
>commanded and performs. The Tosfos of Rabbaynu Tam on the spot mentions
>women putting on a Tallis. For the halacha look up Misheh Berura 17:2 the
>letter Dalet in the Rema - which clearly states that women do receive a
>reward for the mitzvah even though it is optional.
>

This is all true, but I don't understand what it has to do with davening
Shmonei Esrei - give the positions cited above.  It does however
arguably hold for the brachos over the Shema, and the Shema - see Orech
Chaim siman 70 si'if 1 - women are exempt from krias shema but it is
proper to teach them to accept the yoke of heaven upon themselves -
which is understood to mean recitation of the first pasuk of the Shema
On the other hand it does not apply to psukei d'zimra, which is linked
to Shmonei Esrei and hence is obligatory when the latter is obligatory -
and depending on how you hold in the machlokus Magen Avraham and the
Shagas Areyeh on whether women are chayav to say Emes v'yatziv (the
Mishna Brura seems to hold like the Magen Avraham that they are chayav,
and that also they should be careful to say the bracha for geula close
to tephilla - l'samuch geula l'tephilla).

 Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> writes:
>At the risk of belaboring this yet further,  we agree that women have schar
>if they do a mitzvah even if not commanded to.  Your premise, quoting from
>your chavrusa, is that since they get schar,  they should skip as needed to
>say tefila betzibur.
>
>However,  they are gaining tefila betzibur and shema bezmano and losing out
>on psukei dezimra (hopefully not on kavana for davening fast and skipping).
>
>Why should they skip and lose out on psukei dezimra in order to gain tefila
>betzibur and shema bizman when they are not commanded to do either?
>Rav Mimran Shlita holds that since the woman praying will get schar, she
>should pray as a man who comes late to Synagogue does. She should say the
>condensed prayer and then make up the prayers like a man does. Now if the
>time has passed, she should pray in order.

The issue is clearly even more complicated. I Assume you are discussing
the question of what a woman should say if she is running out of time
(Remember the time for Krias Shema is three halachic hours into the day
- Siman 58 Si'if 1 and 6 but if that time is missed it can still be said
with its blessing up to the end of the fourth halachic hour and the time
for Shmone Esrei is four halachic hours into the day (Orech Chaim siman
89 si'if 1, but if that time is missed one can daven up to midday) and
not what she should say if she comes late to shul but is still within
the halachically permitted times for recitation.

Clearly the fact that women are obligated in Shmonei Esrei the same as
men, including the timings, but not in Shema and its brochas is likely
to affect the psak, as is whether you hold like the Magen Avraham on
Emes v'yatziv. The crunch point is likely to come at just before the end
of the fourth hour - because at that point there is a danger that either
you are going to lose the oportunity to say the Shema with its brochas
or you will lose the "ideal" time for Shmone Esrei.  Put in this way, it
would seem to suggest that, unlike the position for men, if found in
that situation women should say Shmone Esrei first, and just say shema
without brochas afterwards (relying on those who hold that Emez v'yatsiv
is not mandatory, or possibly saying only this bracha).

It would not seem to affect the position of arriving late to shul,
because the aim of skipping davening for men is to daven shmone esrei
with the Tzibbur, and since shmonei esrei is the most important part of
women's davening,  with an equivalent chiyuv to men, then it seems to me
that there should be a similar importance placed on it in terms of
skipping.
>

Kind Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz
------------------------------------------------------------------------


I wrote my last post to you in a hurry, what with Yom Tov and all that,
and so just made reference to the end conclusions (eg Mishna Brura,
Aruch HaShulchan), without giving the full sense of the dialogue - so I
thought I would give a fuller picture:

Lets start from the very beginning:

The mishna in Brochas 20a-b states:

Women slaves and minors are patur from krias shema and from tephillin
and obligated in tephilla, mezzuza and birchas hamazon.

And the gemorra adds on 20b:

"obligated in tephilla": because they are in need of rachamim [d'rachmei
ninhu] what might one have thought, since it is written  [tehillim 55: ]
evening and morning and noonday, it is like a positive mitzva dependant
on time [mitzva aseh she hazman grama], kamashmalan [there it is taught
in the mishna]. 

[This is our girsa, the Bach indicates there are variances, and Tosphos
clearly has the word peshita in theirs]

To understand the import of this, you have to bear in mind a fundamental
machlokus rishonim as to the nature of prayer.

The Rambam and the Rif among others hold that prayer itself is d'orisa,
but that the d'orisa mitzva does not have any fixed time when it is
required to be performed.  The Chachamim then came along and fixed
the times for Shachris, Mincha, Ma'ariv etc. However, the majority of
rishonim, including Rashi, Tosphos, the Rosh, the Ramban hold that the
mitvah of tephilla is fundamentally a mitzva d'rabbanan. That is, the
whole mitzvah is established by the Chachamim. (For Rashi's position,
see Brochas 17b and 20b, Tosphos there, if you want the other sources, I
can send them to you).

The position of the Rambam  vis a vis women's davening - is as follows:

Hilchos Tephilla: 1:1: It is a positive mitzvah to daven every day as it
says - you shall serve HaShem your G-d" .... And there isn't a counting
[minyan] of tephilla from the Torah, and there isn't a fixed formula
[Mishna] for tephilla from the Torah, and there isn't a fixed time for
tephilla from the Torah

1:2 Therefore women, slaves and minors are obligated in tephilla because
this is a positive mitzvah without a fixed time, but the chiyuv of this
mitzvah is like one who supplicates and prays all day and gives praise
to haKodesh Boruch Hu ....

He then goes on to explain that in Torah times, some people prayed a
lot, and some a little each as they saw fit.  But that when they were
exiled to Bavel, and they had children who grew up in goyeshe lands,
they confused their language and they weren't able to speak any one
language properly and weren't able to properly ask for their needs and
therefore Ezra and his Beis Din established the Shemone Esrei in its
order, and they established the numbers and prayer times against the
times for the korbanos

1:9 and these tephillos cannot be diminished but they can be added to,
if a man wishes to pray the whole day he may ...

That is, because tephila  is a mitzva not bounded by time, then women
are, as per the general rule, equally obligated as men
in the Torah mitzvah.

However, following this line of thought, the logical conclusion
is that women are equally bound in the time constraints set by the
Chachamim - ie to daven shemone esrei, since all the Chachamim did
was "define" the mitvah.  This explains the mishna in brochas that
women are obligated in tephilla (shmonei esrei) even though they are
exempt from krias shema, which from the Torah has a set time in which
it can be said, and hence is a mitvah aseh shehazman grama.  This is
the position of the Rambam  and Rif and is brought down by the
Shulchan Aruch.

The position of Rashi and Tosphos on women's davening

Rashi and Tosphos have a basic machlokus as to whether women are
patur from mitzvas aseh shehazman gramma which are d'rabbanan, or
whether this concept of paturing women only applies to d'orisa
mitzvahs.

Rashi holds that the concept of paturing women from positive time bound
mitzvahs only applies on a Torah level, in all cases of d'rabbanans,
women are obligated as men are.  Hence, of course, Rashi holds that
women are chayav just as men to daven shmonei esrei.  This is why the
mishna states that they are chayav.

Tosphos (see the top tosphos on Brochos 20b) holds that in general the
concept of women being exempt from positive time bound mitzvas does
apply also to d'rabbanans (they bring a case from Hallel).  However, the
case of shmonei esrei is different.  This is because, in the words of
the gemorra, women are bnei rachmei, ie in need of rachamim just as men,
and hence they were included by the Chachamim in takana.  Hence the
mishna stating that women are chayav, and the reason the gemorra needed
to query the matter, before explaining it.

So both Rashi and Tosphos hold, for different reasons, that women are
chayav, just like men, in Shmonei Esrei.

Now, the Magen Avraham has a problem.  Most of the women of his day
were just not davening. All they were doing is saying some form of
brochas in the morning, and that was it.  So he tried to be melamed
zchus.  He suggests (Orech Chayim, siman 106, si'if katan 2) that what
they are doing is fulfilling the d'orisa obligation as set out by the
Rambam.  He then further suggests that *maybe* [efshar] the Chachamim
never decreed the formal prayer requirements for women, leaving them
only with the d'orisa obligation.  That, of course, requires a radical
new reading of the mishna in brochas, even from that of the Rambam and
the Rif.  That is, the Magen Avraham's explanation of the Rambam by
means of the efshar requires one to read the mishna as not relating to
the obligation of shmonei esrei (as everybody else reads it), but to the
general d'orisa obligation of "prayer" in unstructured form.  And he
also has to assume that the Chachamim exempt women from the takana,
without such fact being stated anywhere.

But even the Magen Avraham's creative attempt to be melamed zchus on
those women who do not daven shmonei esrei only works if you posken
that tephilla is d'orisa like the Rambam.  If you posken that tephilla
is
d'rabanan, then the mishna can *only* be talking about the d'rabanan
obligation, and hence women have to be obligated in shemonei esrei.

Now, as agreed by the Mishna Brura, the Aruch HaShulchan and other
achronim, the majority of poskim hold that tephilla is d'rabanan.  Hence
you can't hold like the efshar of the Magen Avraham, and women are
clearly equally as chayav in shmonei esrei as men.  Given that the
takana of the Chachamim included both the form of the davening (the
number of brochas, their nusach etc) and also the times by which they
must be said, then women are equally obligated in the latter as with the
former.

The only out is in relation to Ma'ariv.  As pointed out by the Mishna
Brura,
the original takana regarding Ma'ariv was that it was reshus (only
Shachris and Mincha were obligated), and it is only because klal yisroel
took on the mitzvah of saying Ma'ariv that it became obligatory.  If you
hold that women are a separate community from men, and they never
took on the obligation, then ma'ariv would remain reshus for women to
this day. If you do not so hold, as it would appear the Aruch HaShulchan
does not, then women would be obligated in all three shmonei esreis just
as men are.

But in all other ways, the takana to say shmonei esrei is the same for
women as it is for men. It is indeed a mitzvah aseh shehazman gramma,
albeit a d'rabbanan one, but notwithstanding that fact, it is obligatory
for women.

Kind Regards

Chana

PS One extra matter I didn't consider in my quick answer to the question
on skipping some parts of davening in shul, is that maybe women should
skip krias shema to daven with the tzibbur, while for men, if they
cannot get  from yotzei or and get to daven shmonei esrei with the
tzibur, they shouldn't skip.  The whole question of what the status of
davenning with the tzibbur is is a very complicated one and it is
further complicated by the machlokus as to whether women really are
davening with the tzibbur given that they are behind a mechiza (it
depends whether you hold that the mechiza makes it a separate room or
not).



>- -mi
>
>- -- 
>Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 10-Jan-00: Levi, Bo
>micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
>http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 97a
>For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         
>

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

In V4 #261, Mechy Frankel, asked:
 	"Could someone knowledgeable of the current state of the legal biz
in Israel please enlighten me about the current practice (or not?) of
yibbum. I'm aware, i think, that a 1950ish rabbanut takkonoh forbade yibbum
and, pursuant to israeli legalities which vest the rabbanut with such powers
in matrimonial matters, the chalitzah may now be enforced through the
legalsuasion of the secular courts. First of all, is that understanding of
the  state of affairs correct? secondly, does it also forbid yibbum if both
parties are willing? thirdly, even if the latter question is answered in the
affirmitive, does yibbum as a practical matter continue to be practiced at
least in sephardic communities?"
	Although I not not meet the prerequisite of being " knowledgeable of
the current state of the legal biz in Israel", I'd like to address the
question. In Volume 15 of Techumin, Dr. Zerah Warhaftig (former Minister of
Religions) wrote an article entitled "Enactments (Takanot) of the Chief
Rabbinate", describing the taknaot of the Rabbanut in the period 5704-5710.
The takanot included various enactments regarding legal proceedings (e.g.
ordaining the Court of Appeals, representation by lawyers, payment of court
costs, the requirement of the court to publish the justification for its
ruling, etc), marriage-related issues (the amount of the ketuba, payment of
maintenance for a widow awaiting haliza, payment of child maintenance,
forbidding the marriages of minors, forbidding bigamy, forced divorce, etc).
Takana no. 3 from 5710 reads:
"We decree for all the inhabitants of the Land of Israel, as well as all
those who immigrate from this day henceforth, that it is absolutely
forbidden for them (to perform) the mitzva of "yibbum". They must perform
"haliza" and they are obligated to pay maintenance ("mezonot") for the
yevamma, (the level of which) the Court will specify, until they free the
yevamma via "haliza". This prohibition (against "yibbum") may only be
relaxed in extraordinary circumstances, according to the decision of the
full counsel ("moatza murchevet") and signed by the Chief Rabbis of Israel."
The basis for the Edict was (quoting from the court itself) "In our times,
it is clear that most yevamim do not have the proper intent (i.e. they do
not perform the act "leshaim mitzva"); As well, (we wish to foster) "ways of
peace" and unity in State of Israel, so that the Torah will not appear to be
two Torot".
Dr. Warhaftig cites (briefly) the history of this issue, including a case in
Fez from 1722 where the Beit Din (lead by Rav Yaakov Even Zur of Machness)
forced a  brother-in-law to perform haliza (instead of yibbum) since [a] he
was already married [b] there was no evidence that he could support two
wives. In a case that came before the Israeli Court of Appeals in 5704
(i.e.before the decree), a married brother-in-law (with children) wished,
according to his Sefaradi custom, to perform yibbum instead of haliza .His
(current) wife agreed (i.e. she agreed that her husband could take a second
wife)  while the yevamma wanted haliza. The man provided evidence to the
Court that in his commnity, the belief was prevalent that one who performed
haliza instead of yibbum would die within the year. The Court (Rav Herzl,
Rav Uziel and Rav Kalmass) decided that the man's ethnic background did not
justify his claim that he prefers "yibbum" over "haliza" and that he should
be forced to perform "haliza" if it is apparent that his intentions are not
"leshaim mitzva" or if he is already married and cannot support a second
wife. The novelty of the 5710 decree was that it forbade "yibbum"
completely. 
In 5710, a women sued her brother-in-law to perform "haliza" and to asked to
be awarded maintenance until he did so. The respondent, a member of the
Kurdish community, responded that despite the fact the he is already married
and has children, he prefers to perform "yibbum". The Court of Appeals (The
two Chief Rabbis and  Rav Hezkiah Shabbtai) decided that in accordance with
the Edict of 5710 he must perform "haliza" and not "yibbum". They stated
that even without the Edict, a married man with children should not be
allowed to perform "yibbum", especially since the respondent was
considerably older than the "shomeret yavam".
	However, despite the Edict, there have been courts that ignored the
Edict when dealing with Sefaradi respondents. In a case in Tel Aviv heard by
Rav Sh. B.Werner, Y. HaLevi Epstein and Y.Sh. Tene the respondent claimed
hsi right to perform "yibbum" despite being married with children. He
claimed he was willing to divorce his wife in order to perform yibbum on the
widow. Dr.Warhaftig does not state the court's ruling explicitly, but I
gather that they allowed the "yibbum" to proceed. (If anyone has access to
the Rabbinical Court records, it is Volume V, p.233-236). However, in a more
recent case in which both parties were Sefaradim, the Court in Ashkelon
stated (in a case complicated by the fact that the parties were both deaf
(perhaps deaf-mutes (?)) that although Sefaradi sages have decided that
yibbum is perferable, and for Sefaradim this opinion is the one that counts,
none the less, the situation now is different and nowadays "yibbum is
uncommon in Israel, due to the enactment of the Chief Rabbinate that haliza
ia always to be preferred over yibbum".
Saul Stokar
	

RYGB wrote:
> I do not accept RSZ Auerbach's ruling on 
> crockpots, nor do I accept RYS Elyashiv's ruling that yayin mevushal no =
> longer permits maga akum or Mechalelei Shabbos. That is because I =
> believe I understand the halachic issues, perused the ra'ayos, and have =
> come to a different conclusion. In a strict halachic issue, that is all =
> that is necessary.



I am prompted to ask the following question after the above from Rabbi
Bechhofer. I think the above betrays his cause since he concedes that
psokim from a godel are non-binding where one 'understands the halachic
issues, perused the ra'ayos, and have come to a different conclusion',
but believes psokim are binding and must not be questioned where the
godel gives little reasoning to his position and the ruling covers areas
where the godel may have little or no knowledge. But I can live with
that.

My question, however, is concerned where rabonim's or gdoylim's psokim
are quoted without any reference to the circumstances behind the psak
and no support as to how he reached his decision.

Can such a psak be disregarded altogether? is its status weaker than a
written tshuve? and how is one to know its scope?

Though such psokim are now a common trend, started, I think, by the
shmiras shabos khilkhoso's oft quotations of reb shloyme zalmen, are
they a desirable development. On the one hand modern communications
allow one to obtain a psak on the spot but these kind of psokim besides
often being inaccurate also weaken academic research and erudition since
a poysek who has to sit down and pen a tshuve will invest far more time
and research into it than he does for an off the cuff answer. It also
enforces blind belief over reasoned judgement as it is difficult to
argue with a judgement if you do not know the reasoning behind it.


Dovid Herskovic

----- Original Message -----
From: David Herskovic <crucible@talk21.com>
To: Avodah <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 5:19 AM
Subject: status of oral psak


> RYGB wrote:
> > I do not accept RSZ Auerbach's ruling on
> > crockpots, nor do I accept RYS Elyashiv's ruling that yayin mevushal no
=
> > longer permits maga akum or Mechalelei Shabbos. That is because I =
> > believe I understand the halachic issues, perused the ra'ayos, and have
=
> > come to a different conclusion. In a strict halachic issue, that is all
=
> > that is necessary.
>
>
>
> I am prompted to ask the following question after the above from Rabbi
> Bechhofer. I think the above betrays his cause since he concedes that
> psokim from a godel are non-binding where one 'understands the halachic
> issues, perused the ra'ayos, and have come to a different conclusion',
> but believes psokim are binding and must not be questioned where the
> godel gives little reasoning to his position and the ruling covers areas
> where the godel may have little or no knowledge. But I can live with
> that.
>

I would not want you to live with that which I did not say .

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

On 11 Jan 00, at 11:19, David Herskovic wrote:

> RYGB wrote:
> > I do not accept RSZ Auerbach's ruling on 
> > crockpots, nor do I accept RYS Elyashiv's ruling that yayin mevushal no =
> > longer permits maga akum or Mechalelei Shabbos. That is because I =
> > believe I understand the halachic issues, perused the ra'ayos, and have =
> > come to a different conclusion. In a strict halachic issue, that is all =
> > that is necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> I am prompted to ask the following question after the above from Rabbi
> Bechhofer. I think the above betrays his cause since he concedes that
> psokim from a godel are non-binding where one 'understands the halachic
> issues, perused the ra'ayos, and have come to a different conclusion',
> but believes psokim are binding and must not be questioned where the
> godel gives little reasoning to his position and the ruling covers areas
> where the godel may have little or no knowledge. But I can live with
> that.
> 
> My question, however, is concerned where rabonim's or gdoylim's psokim
> are quoted without any reference to the circumstances behind the psak
> and no support as to how he reached his decision.

In this particular case, the psak was set out in Machon 
Yerushalayim's journal Moriah after RSZA's ptira (the psak may 
well have been the last one he gave - he took sick suddenly a week 
or two after it came out and passed away within a day or two of 
becoming ill). The article was written by R. Yitzchak Mordechai 
Rubin who asked him the original shaila. It is my understanding 
that RSZA accepted RYMR's reasoning with respect to the 
crockpot.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

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


[ 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         ]