Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 032

Monday, October 29 2001

• Re: T'kheles
• Re: tircha d'tzibura
• RE: davening in 'hazal's time took longer
• Re: Ikkarim
• Re: Ikkarim
• Re: Fwd: sasson ve-simhah
• Eila Toldoth was: Lech Lecha - Questions and Answers
• Semi-permanent Cosmetics
• Re: re Birkat haBanot
• Ikkarim
• Re: Ikkarim
• Re: Birkat habanim
• Re: re Birkat haBanot
• Re: tekheles
• Re: tircha d'tzibura
• RE: davening in 'hazal's time took longer
• RE: Semi-permanent Cosmetics

: R. Micha: <(It would also seem to me that today, perishah min hatzibbur
: lacks the same oomf. We live in a society where no one is going to be
: clamoring to have my tallis pulled off my back over this issue.)>

: As noted, no one would pull a RY's talles off of his back, nor even
: criticize what he did in his own yeshiva, and several RY's had their
: own private minhogim, known among their talmidim, which were out of
: the norm. That answers your later statement <In light of the vitriol
: later mentioned, wearing it publicly raises halachic problems.>

Not really. My point was that today no one would get heated anough
about it to tear off anyone's tallis. It's simply not a divisive
issue anymore at any level. My issue had nothin to do with whether
a given instance would raise any particular people's hackles.

Saying that people's respect for a RY could overcome that hostility
doesn't mean there was no hostility.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

From Areivim... -mi

On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 12:44:14PM -0400, Stuart Klagsbrun wrote:
>:> The chassidim harishonim spent an hour saying Shemoneh Esrei. Were they
>:> unique, or was this a gradual decline?

>: If it weren't unusual why would it have been reported? The gemara doesn't 
>: tell us the chasidim harishonim breathed air. Everyone did. If everyone 
>: davened the amidah for one hour the gemara would have no reason to report 
>: it.

On 26 Oct 01, at 14:30, Micha Berger wrote:
> Say the change was gradual. The tanaim looked back to the ChR, and wished
> they could hold their qavanah 15 min longer than they did. The amoraim
> perhaps looked at them and wished they could hold it for twice as long...

Actually, what I understood as being considered unusual in that 
Mishna was not the hour spent davening but the hour spent in 
preparation for davening. 

-- 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.

On Friday, October 26, 2001 3:24 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> What about simple "nisqatnu hadoros? Since, as R' Papa tells Abayei, there
> is less yir'as Shamayim with each generation, isn't it logical to assume
> they spent more time because they had more to think and feel?

no.

sk

Several people have written things like <<< I don't see how a view
once advocated by gedolei Yisrael can now be invalid. Someone who
today believes that God has a body is certainly not to be regarded as
a heretic... >>>

Should the ikkarim be different than any other area of halacha? Heresy
is not defined in absolute terms, but by the poskim of the day. A certain
set of beliefs might be apikorsus for us, but not for rishonim who lived
in a period prior to the development of a consensus on the issues.

We do not call Rabenu Tam a Mechalel Shabbos because of how late he did
melacha on Friday afternoon. We don't even call him a Mechalel Shabbos
B'Shogeg. Different halachos apply to him and us, not because he was a
rishon, but because halacha was paskened differently in his place and
time, than in our place and time.

And so too, IMHO, we must not label a rishon as an apikorus just because
he did not beleive in Yesh Me'ayin. Quite the contrary, we get a mitzvah
of Talmud Torah when we work on understanding why Rabenu Tam felt melacha
could be done so late on Friday, and we get a mitzvah of Talmud Torah
when we work on understanding why other rishonim disagreed with other
issues which we now take for granted.

All this has seemed self-evident to me since the beginning of this
discussion, yet it has continued for several weeks now. What am I missing?

Akiva Miller

RYGB wrote:
>Who exactly cares what this fellow says anyway? Perhaps his fellow medieval 
>Jews did not drink R' Moshe of Taku's wine uncooked!

Ramban thought highly enough of him to quote him in his Chiddushim to
Gittin 7b.

Gil Student

>From: yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU
>> In the brocho of 'asher boro sosson visimcha , chosson vikallah, gila,
>> rina, ditza......' - why is chosson vikallah sited between / among the
>> various types of joy, rather than being mentioned after or before them,
>> which would allow the various types of joy / happiness to be listed with
>> interruption

I once spoke about this at a Sheva Berachos (and will probably do so again 
IY"H!) - if you answe azoi vi a Brisker, i.e., the kashya is itself the 
terirutz, Chosson v'Kallo , muz men zogen, is guffa a form of simcha - it 
follows that, since there are no synonyms in Hebrew, there is a rhyme and 
reason for the order, and thereforeI proposed that the Sasson... Re'us 
continuum is the continuum between the time of engagement ("shidduchin") to 
ultimate happiness as husband and wife ("rei'im ahuvim").

Dok v'tishkach.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

In a message dated 10/25/2001 11:22:13am EST, cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:
>> "Eileh Toldoth" introduces a "narrowing" or winnowing process. E.G. when the
>> Torah mentions Eileh Toldot Yitzchok Ishmael is rejected.  

> Then how do you explain the later use of Eila Toldos in Parshas Bamidbar
> (3:1).

Try this on for size <g>:
Eileh Toldoth in Bamidbar 3:1 eliminates non-Kohainm
BTW, This explains how Moshe IS included with but NOT Moshe's children -
because after was a Kohen at least pro tem, but not his kids. This is
a lot more "pshat" oriented than Rashi's Drasha re: students...

Simlarly Eileh Toldos at the end of Megilas Ruth indicates the selection
of Malchus. The ambiguity is that it might have indculed all of Peretz
{as in al yad ish ben Partzi} or only the final Partzi David Hamelech.

Review:
Eileh Toldos,,,
1)  Noach selects Noach and eliminates all of Adam's
3) Yitzchak eliminates Yishmael
4) Yaakov eliminates Esav
5) Aaron and Moshe eliminates non-Kohanim
6) Peretz/David get exclusive malchus

2) Terach selects Avraham and Nachor (as in Rivka, Rachel and Leah)
and Haran (as in Lot and perhaps Sara, too). Since the Torah still had
need for Terach's children Narrowing it to down Avarham only would have
been premature...

FWIW my approach is loosely based upon R. M. Liebtag's

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

I understand that there are now available cosmetics (lipstick, eyeliner,
rouge etc.) which are semi-permanent and last for up to two years. Has
anyone seen any halakhic discussion of this? For example, is there a
tatooing/ketovet ka'aka problem? Mikvah/hatzizah problem?
    Thanks in advance
        Ar

--
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Ethel and David Resnick Professor of Active Oxygen Chemistry
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 52900, ISRAEL
E-mail: FrimeA@mail.biu.ac.il

In message , stugold@juno.com writes
>From: "SBA" <sba@blaze.net.au>
>As my father did not have the minhag (nor did his father), and I
>adopted it for my daughters on my own, I have, for "Yisborach" reasons,
>as well as convenience, elected to bentsch my children AFTER Kiddush,
>while lining up for washing. This way, HKBH gets His bracha first and
>guests don't have to wait.

My husband's siddur for minha and arbit (Or Vaderech) which comes with
the halachot according to the psak of Rav Ovadya Yosef has birkat habanot
after kiddush and before washing/hamotzei (which is when we do it).
The statement in the siddur is as follows:

"habanim tzrichim l'neshek avihem v'imam v'tov lvarech otam, v'yaniach
shtei yadave al rosh hayeled"

I may have missed this bit of the discussion, but while ROY here
appears to hold that you use two hands, my husband uses one only on
the grounds that he is not a cohen (in contrast to his uncle, who was
with us this last Friday night who of course blesses with two hands).
Was this discussed previously?

(I myself am conflicted, as I am not used to seeing women do it, although
theoretically I guess I think it is a good idea for the mother to do
it as well. As it is only a four month old issue for us, I haven't
quite worked out whether to do it or not. At the moment my husband is
encouraging me, but I still feel a bit silly. I may find it easier when
David is old enough to know what is happening and respond).

Regards
Chana

-- 
Chana Luntz

Micha asked whether the Rambam actually included letters of the torah
in the formulation of his ikkarim. The translation posted is based on
the printed text, and differs in one crucial passage from the original.
The following is the beginning of the eighth ikkar (my translation )
from R Kapach's edition of perush hamishnayot

    the eighth principle is torah from heaven. and that is that we should
    believe that the entire torah (found in our hands today is the torah)
    that was give to moshe, and that it is entirely from hashem..

the part in parentheses does not appear in the standard printed editions.
Note that rambam in the ikkar is addressing two separate issues:
1) revelation of the text - that the torah was given to moshe by hashem, in 
spite of the philosophic issues in understanding this, and that is not of 
human origin
2) The text that we have is the same that moshe has. 
He goes on to say (as cited by Micha) that every letter in it has wisdoms
and wonders to who whom hashem has given understanding.

This segues into another discussion. Several posters, such as R Wolpoe and
R Eidenson, have suggested that the ikkarim we believe in are not those
as formulated by the Rambam, but rather as understood and developed by the
"ba'ale hamesora". the above is one evidence that the original 13 ikkarim
as formulated by the Rambam may not even have been accurately known, due
to problems with translation. However, it begs the important question.
R Eidenson has formulated the issue quite nicely - the meaning of the
13 ikkarim is precisely what the chachamim of each generation determine
it to be.
as R Eidenson says
> If as you assert that his point was simply to establish that what is
> meant today by the Thirteen Principles of Faith is not exactly what the
> Rambam expressed - I don't think you will find any disagreement

I think that R Shapiro's point is far stronger - it is not only that what is
meant today by the thirteen principle is different, but that many important
rabbanim have explicitly rejected aspects of the original thirteen
principles.

However, R Eidenson's position has some further implications.

1) There really isn't a uniform text that defines ikkare emuna. I.e.,
saying that the 13 ikkarim are normative is like saying the shulhan
aruch is normative - partially true, but not completely, as the shulhan
aruch is only normative with the commentaries and traditions of psak.
Unlike the shulhan aruch, there isn't a generally accepted tradition of
psak and accepted commentaries on the ikkarim.

2) The question of course is what determines who the ba'ale hamesora
that we follow are. R Eidenson follows two rabbanim who are clearly
part of the ba'ale hamesora. However, he also says
> since there is no Gadol who would modify his determination of heresy
> after reading Dr. Shapiro's article.

I wonder how he knows that. Does he know that, say, Rav Lichtenstein,
Rav Norman Lamm, or others more associated with the Modern Orthodox
school rejected it? They may not be his gdolim, but are their positions
irrelevant to what requires a halachic consensus??

Note that there is a tshuva in Yad Eliyahu (cited by R Zvi Yehuda Kook -
I can get the full reference) that argues that it is assur to label as
epkoros large communities, related to the issur of making a large city
an ir hanidahat.

I sense from R Eidenson that he would extend the authority of gdolim to
define not only hashkafic issues as relate to the halachic determination
of min and epikoros, but in general to what is proper hashkafa (even if
doesn't have explicit halachic ramifications, as against several explicit
statements by the rambam.)

As Rav Eidenson
> The starting point for an Orthodox Jew is not only what the texts say
> but how these texts are understood by rabbinic authorities. The truth
> is known and is contained in the Torah literature - an Orthodox Jew's
> job is to understand it. His job is not to determine whether G-d exists
> or whether talmidei chachomim are in error when they label a person or
> group as heretical or even if there is such a thing a rabbinic authority.
> His job is to understand what gedolim say about these things - to the
> best of his ability.

This is a well known machloket I am somewhat surprised that this approach
in general is written out of Orthodoxy, but am content to be with Rav
Hai Gaon and the rambam. This disagreement is not between academics
and the Orthodox community but rather, on the extent of da'as torah
("to understand what gedolim say about these things") - one of the
major disagreements between haredi and MO. (by the way, the Harvard
mathematician cited by RDE is also a major talmid chacham, and the casual
disrespect shown to him as not representing a torah viewpoint would
not have been tolerated by any of the gdolim ( Rav Ruderman and RYBS)
who knew him)
Furhtermore, even for a haredi viewpoint, the limitations posed in the
above paragraph are astounding. If someone writes on hilhot shabbat,
now I can not look at what the texts (gemra, rishonim, achronim) say
to see whether I agree, I should only look at what gdolim have written
about these texts...).

Lastly, and this goes back to other discussions, we have discussed
before the issue of the halachic status of ma'ase rav. There are many
issues that may limit the applicability of ma'ase rav to halacha lema'ase.
However, in the realm of hashkafa and "epikorsut", most of the limitations
do not seem to apply, as we do not have to worry about the specific
situation that led to the ma'ase in regard to published opinions.
While one might argue how much the position truly reflected the rav's,
it is hard to argue that he publicly advocated epikorsut.

While there might be some limited times when we can take a previously
valid opinion and declare it hutz lamachane, as with R Hillel. I think
that most ba'ale hamesora have been extremely reluctant to take this
step with regard to rabbanim who have been part of the mesora. I would
say that today's willingness to take this step is a dramatic change in
ikkarim, and reflects the truly revolutionary nature of much that is
going on in the haredi community.

Meir Shinnar

At 09:40 AM 10/29/01 -0500, Gil Student wrote:
>>Who exactly cares what this fellow says anyway? Perhaps his fellow 
>>medieval Jews did not drink R' Moshe of Taku's wine uncooked!

>Ramban thought highly enough of him to quote him in his Chiddushim to
>Gittin 7b.

Big deal. I would quote Prof. Lieberman, and even Prof. Ginzberg, without 
certifying their Emunos as legitimate by doing so.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

"Rabbi Y.H. Henkin" <henkin@012.net.il> wrote:
>2) It is grammatically identical, "k'Efraim u'ch'Menasheh," "k'Rachel
>u'ch'Leah."

Grammatically, didn't you mean k'Efrayim v'khiMenashe?

>The blessing for my sons, then, is "yesimcha Elokim k'Efraim
>u'ch'Menasheh," while for my daughters it is "'yesimeich Elokim k'Rachel
>u'ch'Leah, asher banu shteihen et Beit Yisrael."

While you may achieved parallelism in the use of the kaf, there is no 
parallel to the description of what the matriarchs did.  You've gained a 
letter and lost a phrase.  Yatza sekharo . . . ?

From: Chana Luntz <Chana@KolSassoon.net>
> My husband's siddur for minha and arbit (Or Vaderech) which comes with 
> the halachot according to the psak of Rav Ovadya Yosef... ROY here appears 
> to hold that you use two hands, my husband uses one only on the grounds 
> that he is not a cohen (in contrast to his uncle, who was with us this 
> last Friday night who of course blesses with two hands)....

Baruch SheKivanti.

I also place one hand over the other, to distinguish from Kohanim. I
think the GRA advises it.

Stuart Goldstein

From: "Seth Mandel" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
> SMandel: <the Rambam (who was a Brisker, in case that fact escaped the
> attention of anyone on the list>

> R. Taitelbaum: <Incorrect, the Rambam writes clearly (in his letters) that
> his work was meant to be learned and understood on its own, without Gemara
> and mefarshim. Which Brisker believes the Rambam?>

> R. Taitelbaum, you misquoted me.  The full quote is: <(who was a Brisker, in
> case that fact escaped the attention of anyone on the list ;-) )>

Oh, that clears up things now, doesn't it. But compare this to:
> In Kovno, they had R. Yitzhoq Elhonon (I know not why R.
> Borshtein and R. Taitelbaum call him "the maggid of Kovno," when he was the
> Kovner Rov and ABD)

Would the kind gentleman please inform me when I EVER said, wrote, or even
thought those words he attributes to me? Don't worry, I'm sure you could
find enough wrong with what I do say; there is no need to blame me for what
I didn't.

> The g'moro says (38b): <tanya: Rebbi Yitzhaq omer mishom Rebbi Natan
> she'amar mishom Rebbi Yose haG'lili she'amar mishom Rebbi Yohanan ben Nuri:
> ein lo t'kehlet, mattil lavan.> What, we can't figure out that you that you
> can't have a t'kheles string if you don't have t'kheles? Obviously, the
> g'moro means more than that, and so Rashi says: <mattil lavan: kol ha'arba
> 'hutin.> In other words, you could say that without t'kheles, you could make
> do with just the remaining 4/6/7 strings of lovon; after all, "hat'khelet
> einu m'aqqev et halavan." Rather, Rashi interprets the g'moro as saying
> that there was some sort of taqqono to have all (4=8) strings being lovon
> (which, according to him, meant red/green/purple or whatever the color of
> the garment was), and not that you can have less than 8 strings

Yes

>  or that the strings can be of any color you want.

That doesn't follow. I realize you are interpeting Rashi's lovon to mean
davka the color of the beged. I don't doubt that Rashi would expect
the strings replacing the techeles to be the same color as the beged
(and the other strings). But to say that is what Rashi is coming to say
HERE seems like stretching things.

> And less you argue that nowadays a
> string colored blue, when the garment was green, is OK because we ignore it
> and consider it not there, remember the halokho of gardumin: if a string is
> completely cut off, even one of the lovon strings that are "extra" over the
> number that Hazal had when there was t'kheles, the tzitzis are posul
> (mahloqes rishonim exactly how much of a string must be cut).

And what I am arguing is that at least the strings in place of techeles,
a different color doesn't pasul. But let's get things in perspective:
the Ramo paskens that the strings do not have to be the same color as
the beged, and so does the Beis Yosef (look at the halocho OCh 9:5
at the Beis Yosef on it). The Mechaber is simply saying why not be
yotzei shittas Rashi and Rambam also, while the Ramo holds it would be
yoharo. But l'halocho we (klal Yisroel) don't pasken that the tzitzis
have to be the same color as the beged. The whole question is really
theoretical--according to Rashi and Rambam is there a problem with
putting a blue string (assuming it's not techeles) instead of "lovon"
in place of techeles. But if you will grant that this halochoh that the
strings should be the same color as the beged is a d'Rabbonon (as the
Mabit in Kiryas Sefer says), and that this is at least sofek techeles
(which I doubt RSM grants), I think OCh 595 answers that, that a sofeik
d'Oraiso is docheh a vadai d'Rabbonon--kal v'chomer here where on the
tzad that this is techels you aren't oiver any d'Rabbonon.

Skipping over much in between RSM continues:
> Do we say that putting on
> another color is OK, there is no problem if all of the strings are not
> lovon, and the g'moro just rejects the idea because the qala ilan was on
> wool?

As pointed out, there may be a difference between "all of the strings"
and the strings that are replacing the techeles. But let's continue.

> Or do we say that the g'moro could have answered that qala ilan does
> not qualify as lavan if the beged is not blue, and the g'moro just gave
> another answer. G'moro cognoscenti know that if there are a couple of
> answers, the g'moro gives one, and it is usually impossible to determine
> what the g'moro would say about the others.

Except, according to Rashi and Rambam, the Gemara blew an excellent
opportunity for teaching us their halocho. The Gemara should have
continued after "lo yehai ela lovon," "v'ha k'siv haknaf--min knaf" so
what do you mean so what if its kala ilan? It's much more to the point,
(I'll let the readers vote on that), and we would have avoided this
whole discussion if it would have, ela tzorich lomar this isn't so.

> So why am I being my normal curmudgeonly self and insisting that the halokho
> is indeed that other colored strings are no good?
> Two arguments. First, according to Rashi: he says, as I have said before,
> that min kanaf means that the tzitzis must be the color of the garment.
> There is no clear support for such a position in the g'moro (indeed Tosafos
> argue against it), so the only reason for Rashi to use it is that he holds
> that is the rule.

Well, Rashi has to get it from somewhere. Once again, at least after the
chasimas haShas we cannot just go darshaning p'sukim. All what is in or is
deduced from the Gemara we are bound by--Rashi and Rambam knew that. I don't
doubt they have a mekor, but without knowing it, it is very difficult to
base sevaros on it.

RSM then continues with the Rambam:
> in 1:5 he says "v'arba'
> hatzitziyot m'aqq'vot zo et zo, she'arba'tan mitzva ahat," "the 4 [whole]
> strings of the tzitzis are m'aqqev each other," apparently a taqqono
> d'rabbonon.

Is this how you understand the Rambam? The Rambam seems to mean that
each tsitsis "bundle" on each corner are m'akev the other three (see
last mishna menachos perek 3, and gemara there 37b). Although I boubt
this makes any difference to your argument.

> And in 1:18 he
> paskens that "im nifsaq hut me'iqqaro, afilu hut ahat, p'sula." In other
> words, he requires, at least d'rabbonon, that you have all 8 strings of
> lovon if you do not have t'kheles. And in 2:8 he defines lovon as meaning
> the color of the garment. So if you have 1, 2, or 4 strings of the 8 that
> are not the color of the garment, and not t'kheles, according to the Rambam
> you are either missing the proper number of strings (which is m'aqqev), or
> you are not fulfilling the mitzva of lovon.

But if the "wrong colored" string is the (in-place-of) techeles that may
indeed be fine. The rambam never says that if there isn't techeles you
put lovon instead; he says you just make the lovon. And don't forget he
writes in 1:1 that the reason the strings that come out of the g'dil are
called lovon is because we are not required to dye them at all. I know
what he says in 2:8, so we need to answer it, not sweep it under the rug.

> It has been claimed that the Chazon Ish disagrees with this, because it is
> quoted in his name by the Maaseh Ish that he said that even sofeik techeiles
> should be worn because there is nothing to be lost; if the Gedolim of his
> generation did not wear Radzyner techeiles -- says the Chzo"i -- it is
> because they did not even consider it a sofeik.
> If this were something he himself wrote I could analyze it and see whether
> he really meant that.

I know the feeling; if only the Beis haLevi or someone later (like
RYBS) would have written the explanation of this a priori that a
cheftza shel mitzva can only be established by a mesora, I'd be able to
analyze. However, my kashya on the Brisker Torah is serious--where's it
from? Even if I never dealt with this subject this would be a kashya. Your
kashya on the CI is more "it sounds like he doesn't agree with me,
maybe if he would explain the lomdus I could show how it isn't soseir
what I say."

> As it is, I can only definitively say that 1) he
> himself did not wear t'kheles; 2) it is claimed in his name that he said
> wearing a sofeq t'kheles is not a problem. As against that, you have a
> statement by R. Elyashiv that he himself wrote that it is a problem to wear
> a sofeq t'kheles, because it is not lovon

Well, the Maharsham apparently didn't believe that, nor the Kutner Rov
(who in teshuva 3 says clearly l'halochoh that even if it would be kala
ilan it isn't a problem to wear "lo yehai ela lovon). And if indeed
it is true, there was the simplest answer in the world to silence the
Radzyner--why didn't ANY Godol (at least none that I know of) say so.

> I was quoting R. Borshtein's book about all the g'dolim who refused to wear
> the Radzyne t'kheles, despite it being at that time a sofeq t'kheles. R.
> Taitelbaum objected: <However the Maharsham (who I believe could be called
> THE poseik of that dor for sure wore Radzyn techeiles and even wanted to be
> buried in that tallis, as he wrote in his tzavaah (to be found at the
> beginning of his "Techeiles Mordechai" on Chumash).>
> I am sure that most will agree with me that it is inappropriate for any of
> us to argue who was "THE poseik" of a century ago.

I'll stand corrected. However, gedolim from all of Europe (including Lita)
sent shalos to him so we can call him "from the great gedolim of his dor.

> But that leads me to my question... At the very least, the Maharsham was the
> well-respected rov of Brezen. So how is it that the inhabitants of Brezen
> did not start wearing t'kheles?

Even I could answer that one, we don't need RMB expertise for this.
Because the Maharsham didn't really believe it was techeles; just on
the minutest sofek that it was, "better play it safe"--a chumra only
for yechidai hador. But clearly he believed that there was no problem in
wearing sofeik techeles. Which means the statement "none of the gedolim
etc." is not true.

> yet the Radzyne t'kheles before 1915 or so was certainly a
> sofek: a blue dye made from a marine animal that met the qualifications in
> the g'moro as well as Murex does.

If you will ever read my sefer, you will see there is no hechreiach
in the lomdus of the Radzyner. As I wrote last time, the Kutner Rov,
the Rashab, even the Chafetz Chayim ("I wouldn't stick my head in the
fire on the Radzyner's Torah) all say that the Radzyner's Torah was
hasharos. As my last Rosh Yeshiva, Rabbi Meiselman, would say, "S'varos
are a dime a dozen"; you have to prove the hechreiach of what you say.

In conclusion:
1) the Maharsham and the Kutner Rov l'halochoh do not see a problem in
wearing sofek techeles.
2) Any problem in wearing sofek techeles seems only to be in shittas
Rashi v'Rambam who the Ramo, and it certainly seems the Mechaber m'ikar
hadin,does not pasken like.
3) Even acc. to Rashi and Rambam, the problem of a wrong colored string
may only be in the strings that have to be lovon; the one's that were
supposed to be techeiles may not have the same din (and it may even be
Rashi and Rambam would diagree on this point).
4) Even acc. to Rashi and Rambam, this din seems to only be d'Rabbonon,
and as we pointed out a sofek d' Oraiso is docheh even a vaday d'rabbonon.

Therefore, IF techeles produced from murex is a true sofeik, then it
would seem that AT LEAST there is no problem at all in being choshsesh
a wearing it.

Shlomoh Taitelbaum

> If it weren't unusual why would it have been reported? The gemara doesn't 
> tell us the chasidim harishonim breathed air. Everyone did. If everyone 
> davened the amidah for one hour the gemara would have no reason to report 
> it.

Was there any discussion as to whether the "hour" referred to was to be
taken literally(did they spend 9 hours a day in tfila related activities?)

KT
Joel Rich

On Friday, October 26, 2001 3:24 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> What about simple "nisqatnu hadoros? Since, as R' Papa tells Abayei, there
> is less yir'as Shamayim with each generation, isn't it logical to assume
> they spent more time because they had more to think and feel?

FWIW, "they" reputedly asked RSZA why his Shemona Esreis suddenly started
taking much longer. To which he replied, "As I grow older, it becomes
more difficult for me to concentrate". Might this not suggest that
Nitkatnu HaDorot is "our" old age and therefore, we need to daven longer ?

On Monday, October 29, 2001 1:23 AM, Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer
<frimea@mail.biu.ac.il> wrote:
> I understand that there are now available cosmetics (lipstick, eyeliner,
> rouge etc.) which are semi-permanent and last for up to two years. Has
> anyone seen any halakhic discussion of this? For example, is there a
> tatooing/ketovet ka'aka problem? Mikvah/hatzizah problem?

From Rabbi Ya'akov Love of Passaic:

-----Original Message-----
From:	Rablov1@aol.com [SMTP:Rablov1@aol.com]
Sent:	Monday, October 29, 2001 2:45 PM

There is no k"k prblem, k'siva is a requisite. So is k'akuah (under the
skin). A woman who did, in fact, want to have her eye liner surgically
applied asked R' Tuviah Goldstein (n"y) the sh'aila. My son-in-law (n"y)
brought the sh'aila to me and I answered as above (first answer) R' Tuvia
came to the same conclusion.
Chatzitza is dependent on hakpada. If the woman had it put on she
certainly isn't makpid that it stays on. Nonetheless, when it wears off
and it's time to remove it or refresh the color, this must be done before
the mikva since the woman is then seen a s being makpid on its present
state. Briefly, it is the same as nail polish os "wraps" from a manicure.
The manicure sh'aila can be found in the Igros.

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


[ 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         ]