Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 002

Monday, September 9 2002

• RE: Why teach the other opinions
• RE: Why teach the other opinions?
• RE: Why teach the other opinions
• RE: Why teach the other opinions
• lo bashamayim
• Re: TShN
• Elul vs. Tishrei
• Teshuva in Elul
• wedding dates and halacha
• RE: wedding dates and halacha
• Re: wedding dates and halacha
• Pants
• Re: Why teach the other opinions
• RE: Why teach the other opinions
• Re: SSY
• Re: Elul vs Tishrei
• Re: Elul vs Tishrei
• Sundry Tefillah Items

On 5 Sep 2002 at 13:34, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
> ... I can hold that I strongly disagree with the lenient opinion, and
> think that it is based on a mistaken understanding of the gmara/SA,
> and rule (for anyone who will ask me or follow my shitta) that it is
> completely forbidden, and try to convince everyone else that it is assur.

Isn't that the same thing as saying it's not a legitimate shita? If a Rav
holds that the heter to do a certain act is completely mistaken and that
the action is completely forbidden, why (and how) should he acknowledge
that the lenient shita is permitted for someone who follows a posek who
holds it's permitted? This is beyond a machlokes -
it seems that the Rav who assers would hold that the lenient shita is
more b'geder toeh b'dvar mishna.

I should hasten to add that there are times when it's NOT legitimate to
dismiss the other shita as illegitimate and wrong. For example, I don't
see how anyone can dismiss the use of ChC as not being legitimate given
the sheer halachic weight of RMF and others who were matir. That doesn't
necessarily mean they have to use ChC themselves, only that (IMHO anyway)
they cannot dismiss the use of ChC as non- halachic.

-- 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.

> then it becomes even more important for our students and children to
> understand *why* we are against it, so that they will not be
> led "astray" by those who do follow that other opinion.

Quite often the psak is based on how the posek learns subtle differences
in Gemara/rishonim/acharonim etc -- which is a level of learning *way*
beyond our children's.

> (Of course, teaching these things does run the risk that it might turn
> our beloved little robots into thinking humans, but that's a whole
> 'nother thread...)

"Thinking" is one thing -- "able to psak" is another. Most people -- even
educated Jews (and many who have smicha) -- are not qualified to "psak".

Akiva

> However, there are here clear sources and rabbanim who are mattir, and
> kehillot who had followed them. To deny the legitimacy of the heter for
> those kehillot, even if one wishes to convince them to change, is not
> merely to disagree with the reasonings/conclusion, but to
> conclude that those rabbanim may not be relied upon by anyone.

In that specific area.

> It is this position -
> that one is very willing to write off positions, poskim, and communities
> contrary to mine as not merely wrong, but as hutz lamachane, that is
> so very problematic

Where do you draw the line? At *some* point positions,poskim,and
communities ARE wrong (and ARE hutz lamachane).

(We've had enough threads here where we've discussed possible areas that
push certain communities/schools hutz)

> (and I would argue, that that position itself makes
> the posek hinmself hutz lamachane..)

So poskim must accept ALL positions as valid?

Akiva

RCS:
> Isn't that the same thing as saying it's not a legitimate shita? If a 
> Rav holds that the heter to do a certain act is completely mistaken 
> and that the action is completely forbidden, why (and how) should he 
> acknowledge that the lenient shita is permitted for someone who 
> follows a posek who holds it's permitted? ...

> I should hasten to add that there are times when it's NOT legitimate 
> to dismiss the other shita as illegitimate and wrong. For example, I 
> don't see how anyone can dismiss the use of ChC as not being 
> legitimate given the sheer halachic weight of RMF and others who were 
> matir....

It is the last case which should be used as the model - the issue is not
whether one agrees with the halachic reasoning behind RMF's heter for ChC,
it is precisely the fact that one recognizes that the posek involved has
"halachic weight". In general, the dismissal of the other shitot as not
legitimate (rather than not legitimate for my community) is precisely the
statement that the rabbanim involved do not have "halachic weight". eg,
with regard to pants, which you cited as one example that some view as
completely assur, Rav Ellinson (I don't have access here at work) cites
several reasonably heavy duty poskim permitting pants, including (IIRC -
please correct me) Rav Ovadya Yosef, and I believe that Rav Lichtenstein
(again - from memory - anyone with current knowledge?). It is precisely
this that constitutes being dan lchaf zchut - not agreeing, not saying
that it is legitimate for my community, but recognizing that there are
other shittot, even if we don't understand them.

Meir Shinnar

Concerning the degree to which we can utilize post Sinaitic revelations
for halacha I just came across and interesting explanation of the
gemora Kesubos 52b which extends the Chida's analysis in Shem Hagedolim
concerning Rabbeinu Yaakov HaChasid.

The gemora asserts that the rabbinic takana of kesubos banin dikrin
apparently violates the Torah principle that only son's inherit and
not daughters. [The case being where a man has two wives who die before
he does and than when he dies the sons from both wives should inherit
equally.Banin dikrin guarantees that a woman's biological sons have
exclusive inheritance of the money of their mother even though according
to Torah law their half brothers should also inherit equally. The reason
for the takana was to motivate a father to give his daughter a dowry so
that she will get married.] The assumption is that if the father thinks
his wealth will not stay with his progeny he will not give it to his
daughter.
The gemora answers that the takana encouraging the father to give his
daughter a dowry is **also doreissa**. - And quotes the navi Yermiyahu
that a father should marry off both his sons and his daughters and states
that the dowry is necessary for the daughter getting married.

The obvious problem is how the verse of a navi considered doreissa? The
simple answer that it is only an asmachta leaves us with the original
problem of how a takana - even reinforced with a verse from navi -
can override a doreissa law. Additionally it seems strange that the
gemora doesn't give the even more obvious answer that the dowry is not
inheritance since the father is giving it as present while alive and
apparently prefers to reclassify a rabbinic law as doreissa.

The Taz (E.H. 113) explains that the basis of the gemora's question is the
fact that according to the Torah only sons inherit. This implies that it
is a Torah principle not to care about the daughters and consequently we
can not do anything for the daughters that affects the son's inheritance.
Consequently banin dikrin must be an invalid takana because it contradicts
the Torah.
The Taz understands that the gemora by saying "it is also doreissa"
resolves this problem by saying that the Torah also has concern for
daughters and therefore it is not a Torah principle that the daughters
are ignored. It proves this from a verse in Yirmiyahu - even though it
is only navi is still the expression of ratzon HaShem - which states
that a father should marry off both sons and daughters.

Thus the term doreissa means something learned from the Torah **and**
that which is ratzon HaShem. The latter can be learned from the prophets
and other sources (e.g., bas kol, ruach hakodesh and even commonsense).
Therefore Torah principles which determine halacha can be revealed after
Sinai without violating lo bashamayim.However the resulting halachos do
not necessarily have the status of Torah laws - but that is another topic.

Kesiva v'chasima tova
Daniel Eidensohn

I wrote an article on the topic of Dan LeChaf Zechus regarding a Tinok
SheNishbah.  However, I think some of my questions are better than the
answers I offer.  But I humbly submit it to the chevrah.  Any and all
comments are welcome on- and off-list.  Please let me know if you agree or
disagree with the two biggest chiddushim (peshat on the Rambam and the final
chakirah regarding tinok shenishbah) because I'd submit this for publication
if I was convinced that it is correct.

http://www.aishdas.org/articles/zechus.pdf

Gil Student

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
<<Thank you (and R' Gershon). I stand corrected.>>

Now that you've said that <g>,

<<WHY is the ikkar deliberately delayed until the Y'mei HaDin have already
begun? Why isn't the ikkar emphasis on doing the teshuva *beforehand*?>>

Maybe most of us need the "umph" of a Rosh Hashana to get us on track,
whereas the Elul track is for those who don't need that proverbial kick
in the pants.

There are also thoughts in the sefarim which express that idea more
philosophically as not being really able to relate to teshuva before
accepting the malchus of HKB"H.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Stuart Goldstein <stugold1@juno.com>
<<Dirshu Hashem B'HimatzO goes on all of Elul.>>

Not in my Gemara. The Gemara (R"H 18a?) refers to behimatz'o as "eilu
asara yamim".

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Shoshana L. Boublil  wrote
<< During the discussion she said "MeiSi'Ach LeFi Tumo" that such and such
happens every month and exactly 2 days later she becomes Niddah. When I
said that this is "Veset HaGuff" -- she didn't know what I was talking
about, she had never heard about "Veset HaGuff" (I sent her to her Rabbi
to confirm this).>>

And if she has a vest Haguf, something happens two days before the
vest comes, it still doesn't help us set up a Zman hachasunah. Unless
she has a vest T'remus Hadeshen that she never get's her vest before
a 20 day hafloga. So once she get's her vest, on a very short notice
(2 1/2 weeks) you have to order a hall print invitations, mail out the
invitations, and wiat for return cards (where applicable).

<<Second, I have asked various doctors who are involved in fertility and
know the halacha and they agreed that the majority of women do have some
kind of VK, though they may be complex. As an example, I know of a bride
whose VK was a cycle of 24-27-27 days that repeated itself>>

Could you please name the VK with this cycle. (dilug , sirug, hafloga,
chodesh ...).

> When I claimed that in all my years as a Kallah councellor I have never
> seen a woman who didn't have a Veset Kavu'a of some type,

Do you mostly work with Sephardi girls? I have heard from two Rabbanim
who deal with this subject that Sephardi girls are MUCH more likely to
have a vesset kavua than ashkenazi girls.

> When I said that this is "Veset HaGuff" -- she didn't know what I was
> talking about, she had never heard about "Veset HaGuff" (I sent her to
> her Rabbi to confirm this).

Not all Rabbanim hold that Vesset HaGuff applies today, when most people
are not aware of their bodies to the degree needed.

> First, that the PILL, in various combinations, is being pushed on girls
> without sufficient medical investigation

True -- and has been for decades.

Akiva

> First, that the PILL, in various combinations, is being pushed on girls
> without sufficient medical investigation (some girls aren't even asked
> their medical background), and without warning the girls about possible
> side effects or long term effects. The idea of the Segula of pregnancy
> on the wedding night is not even discussed with the women.

According to the Rambam Ishus 10:2 Chupas Niddah is not valid chupah. The
chassidic world especially - but not exclusively - is concerned for the
Rambam's position and it is not an issue of convenience or embarrassment (of
course others are concerned about that). According to the Rambam there is
simply no wedding with chupas nidah. See however Igros Moshe EH I 92

                    Daniel Eidensohn

It is my understanding that even RMF Matirs pants on women with the
following conditions:

1. They cannot be in the Geder of Begged Ish. This means that only pants
that are designed for women can be worn by women.

2. The Pisuk Raglayim has to be covered with some sort of top such as
a blouse that goes below that Makom on the body.

I did not see a Teshuvah by RMF but I have been told by reliable people
that this is his Shitah .

HM

>> I should hasten to add that there are times when it's NOT legitimate
>> to dismiss the other shita as illegitimate and wrong. For example, I
>> don't see how anyone can dismiss the use of ChC as not being
>> legitimate given the sheer halachic weight of RMF and others who were
>> matir....

> It is the last case which should be used as the model - the issue is not
> whether one agrees with the halachic reasoning behind RMF's heter for ChC,
> it is precisely the fact that one recognizes that the posek involved has
> "halachic weight". In general, the dismissal of the other shitot as not
> legitimate (rather than not legitimate for my community) is precisely the
> statement that the rabbanim involved do not have "halachic weight". eg,
> with regard to pants, which you cited as one example that some view as
> completely assur, .... It is precisely
> this that constitutes being dan lchaf zchut - not agreeing, not saying
> that it is legitimate for my community, but recognizing that there are
> other shittot, even if we don't understand them.

It is ironic that I get to reverse roles on this issue.

The above asserts that 1) there are high level poskim i.e., gedolim
whose psak transcends their sources. I have no problem with that as I
have asserted that position many time in this forum. What I do question
is your apparent extension of this to assert that 2) there is such a
thing as a posek whose opinion is always valid - i.e. infallible. In
others word you seem to be asserting that a major posek's psak can
never be rejected as totally wrong and the corollary that follows is
that someone who uses the psak of a major posek can not be accused of sin.

I disagree with the absolute validity you seem to assign to assertion 2).
For example the Mishna Berura's statement concerning a bare lower leg
is rejected by Rav Wozner Shevet HaLevi #1 because he claims the Mishna
Berura misread his sources. In other words if the Mishna Berura was
poskening on his own then the psak might be valid even if other's
disagreed because of his weight as per 1). However if the Mishna
Berura had based himself on misread sources or if he did not know the
facts correctly - it is hard to argue that his halachic weight still
gives legitimacy to the psak. Unless you are claiming the gedolim are
infallible. If you are not claiming infallibility I don't understand how
you can protest against poskim who claim that the psak was a mistake. Even
Chazal sometimes made mistakes.

Furthermore Rav Moshe's (EH IV 100.6)defense of the Mishna Berurah (75:2)
while he asserts that the Mishna Berura is correct - that below the knee
is not ervah, he than acknowledges that stockings are only because of
tznius because if it was actual ervah than transparent stockings would
still be prohibited. However neither Rav Moshe nor the Mishna Berura
state that there can not be hirhur concerning the lower leg. In fact
both state that if there is than it must be covered.
In sum. It seems that the hetair of the Mishna Berura and Rav Moshe exists
only if below the knee doesn't cause hirhur. Neither make an absolute
assertion that there can not be hirhur. Other poskim can simply assert
that there is hirhur and thus the hetair is at most valid in a ideal
world which maybe once existed but is surely not the present situation.

An apparent example of error of facts is Rav Moshe assertion in this
tshuva that we do not see actual skin when it is covered by transparent
stockings - it is only an illusion. Apparently he thought it was a
stretchable solid transparent plastic rather than a mesh. I don't think
there is any halachic problem of rejecting his understanding of the
facts in this case.

Bottom line. One must acknowledge that there are psakim of even great
people which can legitimately be rejected by other poskim as being
mistaken or not applicable in a particular case. Even the Mishna Berura
acknowledges that one can modify the official view of another posek
by saying "if he only knew source A or fact B he would have poskened
differently".

                Daniel Eidensohn

I appreciate Rav Eidensohn's erudite (as usual) reply. However, I think
that he misunderstands my point

Several points:

1) First, there does seem to be a category of rav/psak viewed as
"infallible" in the sense that even though I don't follow him, and
may think him mistaken, his community is allowed to follow him without
question - the category of kvar hora zaken - see, eg, ramah on yoreh
deah 64:9 - it is not clear to me how far and under what circumstances
this category would apply - rav Moshe's tshuva (yoreh deah 4:6) would
seem to extend this quite far.

2) The question of whether a psak is always valid is different than
whether he is infallible. I can disagree with rav x's psakim, and believe
thta he is mistaken. Furthermore, I can instruct my kehilla that this
psak is wrong, and perhaps even try to convince those who follow rav
x's psakim that they are wrong. However, the question is how do I treat
those who follow rav x's shitta.

Leg me give a concrete example. There is an eruv that is kasher by some
standards of a noted posek x who was machshir the eruv, and another
rav Y, also a noted posekviews the eruv as completely passul, and that
there may even be a reshut harabbim dorayta within the eruv. Rav Y and
his followers may try to convince the followers of rav x of the error of
their ways. Should rav Y treat those who carry in the eruv befarhesya as
being mehallel shabbat befarhesya? That is in essence what is happening
in the zniut debate.

There have been times when these disputes were treated this way (eg the
get of Cleves) - but in general, I think that in spite of heated debates
between rabbanim, those disputes did not translate as readily as today
to the dismissal of the amcha who followed those rabbanim

3) the zniut debate was (at least I was) focusing on pants - where the
issues raised by RDE against rav moshe's psak don't apply - I am not
sure what type of error is suggested by those who permit pants.

4) With regard to the issue of hirhur for below the leg, once is
the issue is not one of hilchot erva (absolute) versus hilchot zniut
and causing hirhur - clearly the notion of what causes hirhur is very
societally dependent (Rav YH Henkin has argued this at length), so the
issue of whether below the knee is a problem would very much depend on
the societal conditions - and therefore vary from community to community,
meaning that there would be far less grounds to impose the standards of
one community on another - precisely the question at hand.

Meir Shinnar

Elazar M Teitz wrote:
> On Rosh Chodesh, Borchi Nafshi was said on both the t'midim, morning and
> evening, and the musafim. On Chanukah, Mizmor Shir Chanukas was said on
> the t'midim. See Rosh Hashanah 31b, that "niskalk'lu haL'vi'im b'shir"
> refers to the tamid -- whether to say the weekday or the Rosh Hashanah
> SSY. On special-shir days, the day-of-the-week shir was not said at all.

This is a machloketh Acharonim.  The opinion I mentioned is that of the Arukh
HaShulhan HeAthid H. Tmidim UMusaffim 114:14.  Rabbi Teitz mentioned the
opinion of the Magen Avraham.  Compare Minchath Hinnuch #312.  If you have the
Mchon Yerushalayim edition the footnotes are enlightening.  A friend pointed to
Machzor Vitri p. 61, cited in Siddur Otzar HaTefilloth at Hodu in Psukei
D'Zimra.  I'm not sure that's relevant.
Incidentally, no one I checked expressed surprise that there's no explicit
discussion of this in Chazal.  "Hakol talui b'mazal ...."

David Riceman

On 6 Sep 2002 at 10:15, Zeliglaw@aol.com wrote:
> On Yom HaKippurim, we finally reach the high levels of kavanah in Musaf
> and Neilah and literally trust that our tears and prayers will reach
> HaShem. 

In one of Rav Nebenzahl's sichot on Ha'azinu that was printed in the 
Yom Kippur sefer, he says that the culmination is Simchas Torah and 
not Yom Kippur. 

Gmar Chasima tova. 

-- 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 Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 10:47:39AM +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: In one of Rav Nebenzahl's sichot on Ha'azinu that was printed in the 
: Yom Kippur sefer, he says that the culmination is Simchas Torah and 
: not Yom Kippur. 

Baruch shekivanti! I posted the same thing here back in vol 4, based
upon the symmetry: That model defines 49 days of teshuvah before Atzeres!

-mi

Several things I noticed for the first time in my life this RH:

1. In Retzesi on "v'hashev es ha'avodah l'dvir beiseischa v'ishei Yisrael
u'tefilassam tekkabbbel b'ratzon." there is a pitched battle as to whether
the comma/period goes "v'hashev es ha'avodah l'dvir beiseischa. V'ishei
Yisrael u'tefilassam tekkabbbel b'ratzon." as I have always said or
"v'hashev es ha'avodah l'dvir beiseischa v'ishei Yisrael. U'tefilassam
tekkabbbel b'ratzon." Interestingly, there is a machlokes on 1. What Ishei
means. 2. Whether Michoel being makriv the nefashos of thetzaddikim is
a good thing or not.

2. At the end of Modim there is another pitched battle as to whether
"mei'olaim is me'l'eil as i "v'lo tamu chasedecha mei'olam" or me'l'ra as
in "mei'olam kivinu lach". I always assumed the latter, but RYE disagrees,
as do most of the mefarshim in the Otzar ha'Tefillos.

3. In Sim Shalom, the list of seven qualities - Toras Chaim etc. -
represents the lower seven sefiros in the state of hamtakkah (having
been sweetened) via the process of bestowing shalom.

None of those are my own comments, but this is:

4. The beginning of zichronos is read well as a statement that on RH HKB"H
reviews the curse of history from beginning to end and how each individual
is playing his role in this process of promoting G-d's masterplan.

May we be zocheh to identify points of contribution for the coming year!

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

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


[ 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         ]