Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 022

Monday, April 17 2000

• Re: Sefardic/Ashkenazic marriage and pesach
• Re: Rice for Pesach
• Re: Avodah V5 #21
• Interesting to note!
• kiyum miztva on pachos m'kshiur; mitzvos mevatlos zu es zu
• Re: Interesting to note!
• Re: Tal Commission
• Re: Tal Commission
• ZT"L on a living person (was Interesting to note!)
• C, was: sefardim and ashkenazim
• Tal Commission
• Dor Revi'i on relations with reshaim (aka secular Zionists)1
• Re: Dor Revi'i on relations with reshaim (aka secular Zionists)
• RE: Dor Revi'i on relations with reshaim (aka secularZionists)
• RE: Avodah V5 #20
• RE: Avodah V5 #20
• Pesach
• Brisk
• Re: RSL

MIKE38CT@aol.com wrote:


> 
> When a Sephardic woman marries an Ashkenazic man, she is halachically
> required to follow his minhagim regarding pesach (no kitniyot, etc.).  Ditto
> for the reverse--it's the husband's customs that are followed.  However, I
> was just told that if a Sephardic wife is eating in her parents' house during
> Pesach, she is allowed to eat kitniyot--even though she has adapted her
> husband's customs.  This seems strange (althogh it does stress the importance
> of kibud av v'aim in our religion).  Has anyone heard of this rule?  Is it
> brought down in any codification of Jewish law?



Yalkut Yosef, V8 (Mo'adim), Food for Pesah, siman 10:

A Sefaradiah married to an Ashkenazi may not cook rice for herself in
her husbands house, but in her parents' house, she may eat rice and
kitniot. (But she may not be mekil to eat [non-halak] "kosher" meat.)

For further discusion, see Yabi'a Omer, V5, siman 37. I can't do it
justice here.

Hag Sameah!


---sam

Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:


> And my wife is always telling me how much more normal things
> look across the hall where our neighbor can give her kids chicken
> and rice for supper during Pesach. Just think if she had to spend
> all that time checking.... I think I will leave this one open for her :-)
> 



R' Yizhak Abadi paskens that in the States, packaged rice does not have
to be checked, as the companies (he gives Carolina and Uncle Ben's as
examples) spend millions of dollars on equipment specifically intended
to make sure there is nothing but rice in that bag or box, and do a far
more thorough job than we could.

I should mention that not everyone follows his pesak, even though his
halachik principles are sound, and that he has very few friends in the
Kashrut Industry.

See http://www.kashrut.org


---sam

> Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 08:31:49 EDT
> From: MIKE38CT@aol.com
> Subject: Sefardic/Ashkenazic marriage and pesach
>
> When a Sephardic woman marries an Ashkenazic man, she is
halachically
> required to follow his minhagim regarding pesach (no kitniyot,
etc.).  Ditto
> for the reverse--it's the husband's customs that are followed.
However, I
> was just told that if a Sephardic wife is eating in her parents'
house during
> Pesach, she is allowed to eat kitniyot--even though she has adapted
her
> husband's customs.  This seems strange (althogh it does stress the
importance
> of kibud av v'aim in our religion).  Has anyone heard of this rule?
Is it
> brought down in any codification of Jewish law?  Does this rule
apply only if
> she is alone with her parents, or even when she is with her husband
at her
> parents?
>
> Any responses would be appreciated.  Thank you.
>
>
> Michael Feldstein
> Stamford, CT

When an Ashkenaz woman accepts Sephardi Minhag -- she has to do
Hatarat Nedarim in front of a Beit Din (Hedyotot) in order to eat rice
on Pesah.  To accept a Chumra -- you just do.

Rav Ovadya Yosef paskened (I think it is also mentioned in the
introduction to his Hagada) that a Sephardi wife can continue to eat
Kitniyot at her parents' home.

I know of many cases where husbands are Mochel and allow wives not to
take on the husband's personal Chumrot in all kinds of things.
Kitniyot is just one example.


Shoshana L. Boublil

Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 02:54:14 +1000
From: SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>
Subject: Interesting to note!

<<.Rav Yosi Sarid, who is...not identical with the politician with the
same
 name. I wonder if anyone is interested in sharing with him...

The first half of that Posuk is Zecher Tzaddik L'vrocho. Maybe the Rav
qualifies?>>

	Not yet,  B"H.   BTW his yeshiva is called Kollel Meretz,  but I forgot
what it stands for.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

I thought one could bring the following ra'aya to the
question of whether there is a kiyum mitzva on a pachos
mik'shiur: since it is possible to say aseh doche l"t
by an issur achila, e.g. Tos. kashe in Kid. by matza 
shel chadash, why would we not say that when you have
eaten 1/2 of a zayis you have already violated the lav
d'oraysa of chatzi shiur but have not yet been mekayem
the aseh till you finish the full zayis - elah, it must
be that the kiyum aseh is even on less than a shiur.
  
There are a few ways to be doche.

Regaring mitzvos mevatlos zu es zu - see the Gilyonei
haShas (R' Yosef Engel) in Pesachim 115 who addresses
the sevara of it being one mitzva.

-Chaim B.

On 17 Apr 00, at 9:06, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 02:54:14 +1000
> From: SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>
> Subject: Interesting to note!
> 
> <<.Rav Yosi Sarid, who is...not identical with the politician with the
> same
>  name. I wonder if anyone is interested in sharing with him...
> 
> The first half of that Posuk is Zecher Tzaddik L'vrocho. Maybe the Rav
> qualifies?>>
> 
>  Not yet,  B"H.   BTW his yeshiva is called Kollel Meretz,  but I
>  forgot
> what it stands for.

IIRC the Rav you are talking about is the Rav M'komi of Mevasseret.

Chag Kasher v'Sameyach!

-- 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.

RH Maryles wrote:

>>I know of at least one Brisker, R. Aaron Soloveichik. He would support such a 
compromise.  His Grandson, R.
Yitzchok Zev HaLevi Soloveichik, is presently in the Hesder program at KBY.

It would be nice to be Mefarsem this information to the Israeli branch of the 
Family.>>

We all know that the American Briskers are considered by themselves and by 
Israelis to be modern Orthodox and <gasp> Zionists.  Their opinion has no value 
to the Israeli Briskers.


RY Poch wrote:

>>I don't know who these briskers in Israel are, who are against it, but my 
contact with the immediate dynasty indicates that the brisker position is not 
against the report.>>

My guess would be R. Avraham and R. Yehoshua Soloveitchik.  The immediate 
dynasty, to Charedi Israelis, descends from R. Yitzchak Ze'ev Soloveitchik (the 
Brisker Rav) and excludes RYBS and R. Ahron Soloveitchik.  I thought this was 
well known.  Israelis can safely say that Briskers oppose secular studies (I've 
heard it) when both RYBS and R. Ahron strongly support(ed) it.  Israelis can 
also say that Briskers are not ch"v zionists while RYBS and R. Ahron certainly 
are/(were), in their own ways.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

On 17 Apr 00, at 10:00, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:

> RY Poch wrote:
> 
> >>I don't know who these briskers in Israel are, who are against it,
> >>but my 
> contact with the immediate dynasty indicates that the brisker position
> is not against the report.>>
> 
> My guess would be R. Avraham and R. Yehoshua Soloveitchik.  The
> immediate dynasty, to Charedi Israelis, descends from R. Yitzchak
> Ze'ev Soloveitchik (the Brisker Rav) and excludes RYBS and R. Ahron
> Soloveitchik.  I thought this was well known.  Israelis can safely say
> that Briskers oppose secular studies (I've heard it) when both RYBS
> and R. Ahron strongly support(ed) it.  Israelis can also say that
> Briskers are not ch"v zionists while RYBS and R. Ahron certainly
> are/(were), in their own ways.

RGS is correct. In fact, IIRC, when the kvoros thing was going on 
here a couple of years ago (when they were building the highway 
through Pisgat Zev, it was the Brisker Roshei Yeshiva who 
opposed the compromise worked out by Rav Elyashiv.

-- 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.

 Gershon Dubin wrote      Subject:  Interesting to note!

>>Rav Yosi Sarid, who is...not identical with the politician with the
same  name

>>The first half of that Posuk is Zecher Tzaddik L'vrocho. Maybe the Rav
qualifies?

>Not yet,  B"H.

I was referring to the possiblity of a *live*  RYS qualifying as a
Tzaddik...
I recall enquiring some time ago - about saying "Zecher Tzadik L'vrocho"

on a living person. It seems OK according to the first Rashi in
Parshas Noach - on Noach Ish Tzaddik:
"Hoyil VeHizkiroy Sipper Bishvochoy - Shenemar - Zecher Tzaddik
L'vrocho..."

> BTW his yeshiva is called Kollel Meretz, but I forgot what it stands
for.

Now that is getting curiouser and curiouser.
2 Yossi Sarids and 2 Meretz's...!?

SBA








BTW his yeshiva is called Kollel
>Meretz,  but I forgot what it stands for.

In Avodah V5#19, GDubin wrote:
> C laity,  OTOH,  is the victim of the most
abysmal ignorance in the history of Judaism.
Same for Reform laity.  There is nothing in
their movement like the emphasis on study that
is the hallmark of O,  and they don't bother.
They attend C services when it's convenient,
either for their conscience or their geography.
Learning about Yiddishkeit takes too much time.
They might increase their observance if a proper
kiruv approach were taken;  teenagers and young
adults are much less a victim of this ignorance
and more open to Jewish education. <
I know that Mr. Dubin meant well, so I'll be gentle:
unfortunately, a lot of what he wrote applies to those
who might label themselves, or be labeled,
traditional/Orthodox.  OTOH, I learned for a few years
at Aish, and am still good friends, with a particular fellow
who is quite intelligent, educated, and set in his
Torah-is-not-Divine ways -- from a kiruv perspective,
I never give up on anyone (to quote from a later post by
ETurkel, "If however, the rasha answers that he
is a Jew but his defintion of Jew is different
than ours than there is a purpose to continue
the dialogue"), but there are many C Jews like him
(and, as best as I can tell, his wife; he was single
when we learned together) who are committed to what
they believe is the proper derech.  In a later post, DFinch
wrote, "It's hard to generalize about Conservative Jews
without risking inaccuracy."  I would strike
the word "Conservative," if not also the word preceding it
and the word following it, and ask that we all consider
the lessons of "kol dichfin," the Arba Minim, etc. before
penning generalizations and categorizations.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

Having read the press coverage of the Tal Commission, can someone explain to
me where the compromise is?People are free to learn as long as they wish,
get a full p'tur at 40 (at 31 with 5 children).  Is it that one can leave
Yeshiva earlier if he does four months basic and goes into miluim or does
one year of nonmilitary national service?Is the State obligated to make boys
stay in Yeshiva on the pain of not being able to work?Do the Yeshivas need
the State to coerce boys to stay in Yeshiva? The opposition sounds like the
Syrians and Lebanese crying that the Israelis have no right to leave
Lebanon?What am I missing?

>But today the secular/Reform segments *do not* guard our unity -- they
>encourage intermarriage. Furthermore, they deny any uniqueness to the Jewish
>people or our heritage.
>
>*They* are the ones splitting the nation.

You probably meant this, so, just to clarify: this may be true of some of
the _leaders_ of these groups, but not the followers.  There are over a
million American Reform who are truly tinokos shenishbu.  Huge numbers have
a pintele yid aching to connect . . . 

-- Eric

Shlomo Abeles wrote:

<<<
I can't understand why he accepted doctrine of isolation in an
entire country (Hungary) - but cannot accept it for Klall Yisroel.
>>>

I am reluctant to respond to questions about what the Dor Revi'i
said, because I don't want to appear to be speaking on his behalf,
although in presenting a translation of his work, I obviously had to
do that to a certain extent.  But I want to emphasize that my reply
is pure speculation (though perhaps informed speculation).  I think
the distinction that the Dor Revi'i was referring to was the isolation
of religious communities that had come about in Hungary in the 
late 19th century, in which separate communities consisting of 
Orthodox and Neologs (reform, but covering a wide range of 
religious observance) were formed.  Thus, to avoid a situation in
which orthodox Jews were subject to the religious authority of 
religious communities controlled by reform authorities, the Dor
Revi'i accepted that it was appropriate for the religious 
communities that operated under government control and 
exercised certain governmental powers to be separated.  But 
this did not mean that there should be a total rupture of 
relationships on non-religious questions.  That is how I would 
interpret his saying that there cannot be separation from
Klal Yisrael.

<<<
And what would the DR have said about the Yossi Sarids and the
Tommy Lapids? Was he so tolerant only on passive secular Zionists
or would he have accepted Meharsei Hadass as well?
Is there anything about that in his writings?
>>>

Not that I can think of off the top of my head.  What does come to 
mind is that one of the Dor Revi'i's remarks that got him into how
water with the anti-Zionists (and you will appreciate this given our 
off-line discussion on another topic) was that he hoped that in the 
olam ha-emet he would be worthy to be Herzl's footstool.

Nevertheless, I take your point that, l'shitato, one could still make a 
distinction between those who are hotim and those who are 
mahtiei ha-rabim.  But see his reference to the midrash on Hoshea
4:17.

Akiva Attwood wrote:

<<<
But today the secular/Reform segments *do not* guard our unity -- they
encourage intermarriage. Furthermore, they deny any uniqueness to the Jewish
people or our heritage.

*They* are the ones splitting the nation. How open-minded and forgiving does
the Dor Revii expect us to be? Even HKBH had limits (80% of the Jews were
killed in mitzrayim, more after the Chet haEgel, more still after Zimri,
etc).
>>>

I agree with you that there are provocations.  Very outrageous provocations.  
But since when do extenuating circumstances justify improper conduct?  
Shver tzu zein a yid!  If you have enough self-control to stand by and watch 
all your possessions go up in flames on the Sabbath because you are not 
allowed to extinguish a fire to save your property, why should you complain 
about being obligated to restrain yourself from acting in a provocative way 
towards a secular/reform Jew?  I am sure you are not suggesting that we 
should lose another 80 percent of the sh'earit ha-pleita, though someone 
less tolerant than I might misconstrue your words.  (And by the way, would it 
shock you to know that I personally don't believe that the midrash about the 
80 percent is historically accurate?  I mean if the Ribbono shel Olam were 
throwing out the bad apples, how could He have missed Datan and Aviram?  
You remember them, the ones that ratted on Moshe to Pharoh.  And the 
Egyptians never figured out that 80 percent of the Jews just disappeared?  
And no, I'm not relying on the Dor Revi'i for that one.)

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

> towards a secular/reform Jew?  I am sure you are not
> suggesting that we
> should lose another 80 percent of the sh'earit ha-pleita,

Within a generation, halachically we *will* lose 80% due to intermarriage --
and there is no question of tolerance/intolerance there.

> though someone
> less tolerant than I might misconstrue your words.  (And by
> the way, would it
> shock you to know that I personally don't believe that the
> midrash about the 80 percent is historically accurate?

Ignoring the *historical* side of the midrash -- the important thing is that
it was considered acceptable *hashkafically* to wipe out 80% of the Jews,
not because they were *evil* but because they had *assimilated*.

> I mean if the Ribbono shel Olam were
> throwing out the bad apples, how could
> He have missed Datan and Aviram?

How could He have allowed the Serpent to entice Chava?

Akiva


A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

RA Davidson wrote:

>>Somewhat relatedly, am I the only person who rolls his eyes when I see
someone
double-park and see someone wearing a yarmulke walking out.?

RS Katz wrote:

>>No not by any means. One might say that this and other such offenses
border on
chillul hashem.>>


Why is this chillul Hashem? Are we so pretentious (naive) as to think that
people who see a yarmulke on our heads assume that we represent g-d's pro
double parking policy? Why can't we be normal people with an urge to get
away with double parking like any goy (sheketz)? If NYers double park and we
do it alomg with them, we're not worse, rather we're "meurav im haBrios"
(hey, this sounds almost centrist). While I agree that for a yid to hold
himself to an even higher standard than an average society member is noble -
that is EXACTLY what it is --> noble. And to not be noble is not a chillul.
And if people criticize us more than they do goyim, it means 1 of 2 things:

1] - They expect more from us, which implies they usually GET more from us -
a compliment.
or
2] - They already have an axe to gring. And there's no way to satisfy this
type

So, let's be secure in who we are and act like humans (or at least NYErs,
which includes an occasional double park)

And by the way, am I the only heimisher yid who krechtzes when I see unzerer
mentshen rolling their eyes?

Aaron

Some comments on HM's post below regarding "goyim" -

"The hebrew faculty (Rebbeim, and
Roshei Yeshiva) in RW Yeshivos so demonize goyim ..."

Aaron's comments -

Our RW faculties ...
-----------------
Hebrew faculy implies that there is another type of faculty. The only other
faculty, for my experience in heimishe (I'm assuming RW does not stand for
"Real Wealthy") yeshivos, is the kitchen staff, who in many cases are
themselves "goyim".

That old nomenclature debate - goyim vs shkotzim
-----------------------------------------------
"so demonize goyim" . Hmmm... an interesting choice of lishoinos for a non
RW. I say either use the proper - shkotzim, arelim, or oivdei koichovim  -
or stick with the PC - gentiles.


Odom uvehema toishia ...
------------------------
"nothing more than Behemos" ? Maybe true, but also nothing less than
behemois, whose "human" rights are vigilantly protected by the halacha.
Bottom line - let's not demonize animials either, an especially important
point for non RWers.

Proof or conjecture ...
--------------------------
"This attitude is rarely discouraged." An interesting point. Waht do we mean
by rare. I supppse we are saying that in fewer than 4 out of 10 (to staisfy
the loshon "rarely") situations in heimisher yeshivos (with non Hebrew
faculties on the side) in a late Thursday night bull (shor b'loshon ivri)
session when  yeshiva bochur talks about the chiyuv misa of "goyim" (sic) a
passerby hanholo member is not moicheh. IN which (dirty) closet was HM
hiding to gather such anectodal evidence.

My own anectodal experience (being an RW myself) negates HM's conclusion, at
least when talking about non b'nei kush (I think you know to whomm I'm
referring).

I do agree with HM that "demonization" is the inyana d'yoma :-)

Guten Pesach (Chag kasjer ve'sameach for all non RWs).

Love -
Aaron



It's not beyond me.  The hebrew faculty (Rebbeim, and
Roshei Yeshiva) in RW Yeshivos so demonize goyim that
it is a natural outcome for Bachurim to say that Goyim
(i.e. the secuklar studies teachers) are nothing more
than Behemos, and to say they are MIchuyav Misa anyway
because they most likely violated one of the Shiva
Mitzvos Bnei Noach. This attitude  is rarely
discouraged.

HM

Some remarks from RSZ Auerbach (as told by Rav Nebenzahl)

1. He questioned wether one fulfiils the mitzvah by stuffing ones mouth
with matzah
   since that is not "derech achila"

2.  One cannot give ones dog something to test if it is "reu leachilat
kelev"
   since our dogs are used to fancy food.

Seperately,

A way to use a "hot stone" for kashering is to use a hot iron
(disconnected from the electricity)

Eli Turkel

> >
> >It would be nice to be Mefarsem this information to
> >the Israeli branch of the Family.
> Rav Aaron's son, Rav Chaim, is the rav of our shul in Ramat Beit Shemesh,
> and someone I have known personally for 20 years.
> He also supports the idea that there should be some sort of compromise.
> I don't know who these briskers in Israel are, who are against it, but my
> contact with the immediate dynasty indicates that the brisker position is
> not against the report.
> 

The "Israeli" Briskers are the descendants of the Brisker Rav, Rav Zeev
(Velvel)
Soloveitchik. Not the descendants of his brother Rav Moshe Soloveitchik
even
though some of them have moved to Israel in recent years.

Obviously, R. Aharon Lichtenstein and most of his children and R. Aaron
Soloveitchik
and his children have a different approach to life than the Brisker Rav
and his family.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

Jonathan Baker wrote:

<<<
 Nothing else egalitarian happened
until after RSL's death.  Significantly, women counting in the minyan
was not passed until 1973, the year RSL died.  I would guess that it
could not have passed while Lieberman exerted his conservative in-
fluence.  After that, the innovations came thick and fast for ten
years, leading to the present state of affairs.
>>>

Prof. Lieberman did not die until just before Pesach in 1986 or 87.  
The hierarchy of JTS was not sufficiently meiz panim to override 
Lieberman's well-known opposition to the ordination of women during
his lifetime, but made haste to do so after his petira.  Lieberman was
also the official rabbi of the Seminary minyan.  I don't think that there 
was actually a mehitza, but there was separate seating.  The minyan, 
of course, became egalitarian after petira also.  Once it became 
egalitarian, Professor Finkelstein stopped attending, and a minyan
for the recalcitrants such as Professor Weiss-Halivni began to meet 
in Finkelstein's apartment.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

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


[ 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         ]