Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 004

Wednesday, September 11 2002

• misas tzadikim are m'chaper (beyond melitz yosher)
• Kol Yisra'el...
• Re: Pants
• Re: Why teach the other opinions
• Re: Sundry tefilla items
• Re: Pants
• Re: Pants
• Re: Taz on daughter wedding present
• Re: Why teach the other opinions
• Re: Sundry Tefillah Items
• Re: Sundry Tefillah Items
• RE: Sundry Tefillah Items
• Sundry II
• Re: Pants
• RE: Why teach the other opinions

Continuing a topic that started on Areivim...

[The topic is attributing the death of a baby, a misah meshunah, to
kapparah for the kehillah at large's aveiros. -mi]

R"N Rena Freedenberg wrote <<< I am a bit concerned when I hear something
like this, because it is very x-tian-sounding. The x-tians say that
yashka took all their sins and atoned for them by his death. This is
not a Jewish concept.>>>

I'm not so sure that it's not a Jewish concept. Where did they get it
from? What do we mean when we say that a certain korban is m'chaper for
this or that?

RRF: <<< I don't think that this is the same thing as saying about the
death of a tzaddik that his death should be a kappara, as one could
figure that the tzaddik did many, many mitzvot that will speak for
him during his court hearing in the bais din shel ma'alah and help to
mitigate punishment for klal yisrael's sins.>>>

Is a kappara the same thing as a melitz yosher? We ask the avos to be
meilitz on our behalf, but I can't recall ever hearing that their deaths
were a kappara for something.

R' Sender Baruch wrote <<< I have always understood this to mean that
the loss of the tzaddik is a punishment.>>>

This sounds more reasonable, in that the loss of the tzadik hurts
me, and thereby removes some of what orther punishments I might have
deserved. This can work with others who are not tzadikim, too. The loss
of an animal which I (or someone else) did semicha on, and therefore I
identify with, pains me and can be mechaper. Same too with relatives,
friends, acquaintences, -- even strangers, if I identify with them in
some way.

Akiva Miller

On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 01:26:40PM -0500, sholom@aishdas.org wrote [on
Areivim]:
: The question is: does 'kol yisroel areivim zeh l'zeh' mean anything?

Is it "zeh lazeh" or "zeh bazeh"?

The Ein Yaaqov has a lamed, but the original gemara has a beis.

 From which the Ohr haChaim concludes that it means "all Jews are mixed
in one with the other". (/`rb/ as mixture, not guarantor!) When Benei
Yisra'el sinned, Mosheh Rabbeinu was unable to get nevu'ah because that
of his soul that came from the rest of us lacked the ability.

-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

Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
> There have been a number of references to poskim who permit women to
> wear pants - in particular Rav Ovadiya Yosef and now Rav Moshe.

> I would really appreciate knowing the source of such pronouncements. The
> one Tshuva (Yabiya Omer (6 YD 14) I found of Rav Yosef addressing the
> issue concerns "Which is worse - a mini skirt or pants?" He concludes that
> mini skirts are worse. I don't see that as a hetair to wear pants.

> Now we have another pronouncement that Rav Moshe permitted pants - I was
> not able to find such tshuva in the Igros. If Rav Moshe in fact poskened
> on the issue I would assume it was in a similar context to that of Rav
> Yosef....

Since I am the one who brought up RMF, I feel the need to clarify what I
said. The information I have is purely anecdotal and not directly from any
Posek. This is why mentioned that I did not see any Teshuvos on it. It
was told to me by a friend who is trustworthy about 25 or 30 years ago
and would not make false statements about Gedolei Israel. IIRC my friend
told me that the Psak on this issue was verbal. It is possible however,
that this friend was herself missinformed or maybe made a mistake about
who the Posek was. If I gave a false impression about RMF, I apologize.

But as to the essence of what I thought to be his Psak I do not see
the problem with it. If indeed the problem of Begged Ish, and Erva
are satisfied what is wrong with it? It seems like a reasonable Psak
to me. The only issue regarding Erva is the issue of Pisuk Raglayim.
If that area is covered by a long jacket, for example, why wouldn't all
or most Poskim agree to it's permissibility? Does the jacket have to go
below the knee if a woman is wearing pants? I doubt it.
Certainly there is no issue of Tznius either since wearing pants that
are not tight is so pervasive and common it is not considered immodest
in our societies. Nor is Chukas HaGoy an issue here anymore than wearing
a double breasted suit is for a man.

As long as the outfit follows parameters of Begged Isha, and there is
no Pisuk Raglayim or Tznius issues, it should be 100% Mutar.

No?

HM

There is an interesting paradox. If you argue that there is a rule
that one can not criticize the utilization in another community of
the ruling of a major posek - than how can you criticize the psakim of
major posekim who say that you can. How can you criticize their position
without violating your own rule!

> 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.

You are assuming that which you need to prove. Not everything that a rav
says- is his community allowed to follow him without question (at least
not after he has been attacked by major poskim). For example the case of
those who setup a beis din to annul marriages. In fact Jewish history is
so replete with examples of rabbinical authorities making pronouncements
about the psakim of other rabbis - one has to conclude that your rule
has typically been ignored and violated by gedolim in every generation -
or in fact that there is no such rule but rather a pragmatic issue by
issue response. In other words, the rule is "don't criticize unless
there is a good reason." A classic case would be the Wurzburger Rav's
attack on R. S. R. Hirsch or the Satmehr Rebbe's attack on Rav Moshe.

I would propose the following guidelines: One does not interfere or
publicly question if 1) there seems to be some basis for the psak
(Mishna Berura on relying on 600,000 for making an eiruv) 2) The issue
is not relevant for your community (prohibtion of Torah learning for
women in chasidic communities) 3)There is no possibility of changing or
influencing the behavior in the other community (Sedridei Aish's tshuva
on singing in mixed groups 4) There has been widespread acceptance of
the psak -kitniyos on pesach) 5) public confrontation will undermine
rabbinic authority or religious observance in general (reason why litvaks
and chassidim stopped fighting). 6) The posek is widely respected (Many
of Rav Moshe's and Mishna Berura's rulings).

The above are usually ignored If a posek feels that the mere existence
of such a psak will have a negative impact on his own community.

[BTW I don't understand your concept of kvar hora zaken especially the
relevance to Rav Moshe's tshuva YD 4:6.]

> 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
> that 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.
...
> 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

Again I think the issue is dealt with pragmatically on the basis of the
previous listed factors. I don't think that todays behavior is significantly
different than in the past and I would appreciate a more detailed
justification for your assertion. For example can you show that for
comparable issues that people were more tolerant in the past?

> 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.

Simple issue is whether those who permit wearing pants are lowering the
acceptable standard of tznius and are thereby degrading the moral climate.
For example if a rav claims that  social dating is totally permited and as a
result Boro Park is filled with yeshiva boys and seminary girls hanging out
together or that there is really nothing wrong with smoking marijuana- there
is an impact far outside of the community of that rav. It would be a major
problem here in Jerusalem going into Geula or to the Kosel if there was
noticeable number of frum girls wearing pants. Ancient question of whether a
member of a group on a boat has the right to drill a hole in his part of the
boat without the others protesting?

> 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.

1) Again as noted above the communities are not isolated from each othe,
so what happens in one community readily impacts others 2) Read Rabbi
Feldman's discussion of Rav Henkin's position in Tradition. vol 34 #3
Fall 2000. He concludes "R. Henkin's theory is unacceptable because
of the following difficulties: 1) Modern society is not the paragon of
innocent sexuality which R. Henkin claims it is. 2) Who is to determine
if and when erotic thoughts do not exist in modern day society? 3)
Even if we could determine this, lack of hirhur is insufficient reason
to annul existing prohbitions. 4) One is hard-pressed to find a valid
source for this theory in any of the classic authories....The fact is
that the parameters of the habituation theory are so loose and so open
to misreadings that they can be misued even by those who are responsbile
and well-meaning. And the slippery slope is only inches away."

In sum, I could agree with you and Rav Henkin more readily in an ideal
perfect world of rational people who can filter out inappropriate
influences. My assertion is simply that the behavior of rabbonim in
criticizing the rulings of others can be justified (but not always)
because of the nature of real people and how they are influenced.

        Daniel Eidensohn

> Has anyone ever discussed the difference between the Nusach of "Avinu
> Malkeinu Nikom Nikmas Dam Avadecha HaShafuch" (Sfard) vs. "...Nikom
> L'AINAINU Nikmas Dam ..." (Ashkenaz)? Yet, in Av HaRachamim said on
> most Shabbosos, both have the Nusach "Yivoda BaGoyim L'Ainainu Nikmas
> Dam Avodov HaShafuch". To further complicate it, the Nusach Ashkenaz
> Av HaRachamim earlier states: "Shi'Ar Tzadikei Olam, V'YIKOM Nikmas Dam
> Avodov" WITHOUT L'Ainainu, whereas Nusach Sfard has "Shi'Ar Tzadikei Olam,
> V'YINKOM L'Ainainu Nikmas Dam Avodov". Some add in the word "B'Yameinu"
> before L'Ainainu on Yom Tov that falls on Shabbos.

Look in Nesiv Bina ( R Yaakovson, Vol. 5 ). The issue of the nuschaos is 
extensively discussed therein.

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

> Since I am the one who brought up RMF, I feel the need to clarify what I
> said. The information I have is purely anecdotal and not directly from any
> Posek. This is why mentioned that I did not see any Teshuvos on it. It
> was told to me by a friend who is trustworthy about 25 or 30 years ago
> and would not make false statements about Gedolei Israel. ...

The issue is not whether your friend lied. The problem is that there are
now people in the world who feel that they can rely on the "fact" that
Rav Moshe permited something because an erhliche yid asserted that he
has reliable sources that it was true. This "hetair" continues to exist
even though we have now been informed that the reliable sources are now
a single source from 30 years ago who "might have been misinformed or
made a mistake about who the Posek was."

Without knowledge of 1) the facts of the supposed case and 2) what was
supposedly permited 3) who in fact the posek was 4) whether the posek
wanted the psak to be publicized - the information is worse than useless.

There is research in psychology which indicates that when people are
given information and then told that it is false - they often retain
the original information and forget about the disclaimer.

> But as to the essence of what I thought to be his Psak I do not see
> the problem with it. If indeed the problem of Begged Ish, and Erva
> are satisfied what is wrong with it? It seems like a reasonable Psak
> to me. The only issue regarding Erva is the issue of Pisuk Raglayim.
> If that area is covered by a long jacket, for example, why wouldn't all
> or most Poskim agree to it's permissibility? Does the jacket have to go
> below the knee if a woman is wearing pants? I doubt it.

As I cited in my post. Rav Scheinberg does in fact require that the coat
reaches to the knees. You in fact orginally asserted that "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."

> Certainly there is no issue of Tznius either since wearing pants that
> are not tight is so pervasive and common it is not considered immodest
> in our societies. Nor is Chukas HaGoy an issue here anymore than wearing
> a double breasted suit is for a man.

These issues that you readily dismiss are not dismissed by major poskim
such as Rav Ovadiya Yosef.

> As long as the outfit follows parameters of Begged Isha, and there is
> no Pisuk Raglayim or Tznius issues, it should be 100% Mutar.
> No?

100% Mutar!!!!!! No way! In particular since you define tznius as what
is considered as such in the non frum world. You should read the sources
I cited in my original posting.

There is a story that a certain rav in Hungary would regularly cite the
Chasam Sofer as the source of his psakim. The Chasam Sofer got upset
when he found out how his authority was being abused and summoned the
errant rav. The rav said he didn't see that he was doing anything wrong
since he only psakened according to what he was sure was the correct
halacha. The Chasam Sofer told him simply. "I don't object to you saying
my rulings in your name but don't ever claim that I paskened according
to what you think is right."

The greatness of a posek is not because they say what we want to be said
but rather they say what has to be said.

BTW I am curious to know how Rabbi S. Fuerst of Chicago would respond
to your assertions. If you have a chance I'd appreciate you asking him
since he might be able to clarfiy whether in fact Rav Moshe ever said
anything about this issue..

        Daniel Eidensohn

On 10 Sep 2002 at 14:54, Harry Maryles wrote:
> The only issue regarding Erva is the issue of Pisuk Raglayim.
> If that area is covered by a long jacket, for example, why wouldn't all
> or most Poskim agree to it's permissibility? Does the jacket have to go
> below the knee if a woman is wearing pants? I doubt it.

AFAIK in those circles here where girls are allowed to wear pants
(on hikes - just about the only time it's officially sanctioned in any
fruhm circles here), they do in fact wear skirts that are below the knee
(i.e. ordinary length).

-- Carl

>> The Taz (E.H. 113) explains ...
>> 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.

> The Taz does NOT ask how can a verse in Navi represent d'oraissa.
> Presumably the navi is revealing Torah sheb'al peh(until his generation).
> The Taz does NOT  say the navi is "ratzon Hashem".  Rather he says it is
> "eitza tova" and not din.

The Taz says:" Originally the gemora asked how could the rabbonin make
the takana in the first place since every place they make a takana it
is for the sake of something good that will result from it but to give
to the daughter what good will result since we see from the Torah that a
daughter does not inherit. That means that the Torah has no concern for
the daughter so why are the rabbonim being merciful to her? The gemora
answers this question by stating that this is also doreissa. In other
words we see that there is a doreissa principle to be merciful to her
and therefore the rabbonim decreed the kesuba banin dikrin in order to
fulfill the ratzon of the Torah."

The Taz says that the words of the Navi to marry both sons and daughters
is called doreissa and expresses the "ratzon of the Torah". Thus being
merciful to daughters is the Ratzon of the Torah.

You are reading it to mean that the Navi's pronouncement was based upon an
Oral Law tradition that father's should be nice also to their daughters.
Thus ratzon haTorah is referring not to prophesy but rather to the
tradition that he is basing himself on. Thus these words are Yirmiyahu's
own words and not prophesy.

I agree that the concept underlying the prophets words are Ratzon
HaTorah but I am claiming that the prophet's words to marry off sons and
daughters were actual prophesy and thus they are post sinaitic. And thus
the words of prophesy are being called expressions of ratzon HaTorah and
doreissa. This post sinaitic principle can modify our understanding of
the Torah itself because it to is ratzon haTorah.

The major problem with your understanding is that the prophet introduces
his words by first saying 29:4 "Thus says the L-rd of Hosts, the G-d of
Israel to all the captivity whom I have caused to be carried away... Why
would Yirmiyahu merely be giving advice after this introduction even if
based on Oral Law?

The issue of eitza Tova is refering to the limitation of how much the
father gives not the fact that he should give.

I do acknowledge that the Taz citing Bava Basra (28b) seems to indicate
that the whole thing is eitza tova - but if taken literally we are not
dealing either with prophecy or with mesorah nor do we have an explanation
of why the gemora in Kesubos is refering to the prophet as doreissa and
ratzon haTorah.

>> 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).

> I see no basis for this conclusion from the Taz.

The conclusion only follows from seeing the words of the prophet as
prophecy as the pshat indicates. According to your reading that he is
making up this advice to be kind to daughters based on mesora that one
should be kind to daughters than there is no basis to my conclusion.

                Daniel Eidensohn

On 10 Sep 2002 at 19:07, Micha Berger wrote:
> (Never mind what the case was...) Doesn't appealing to the poseiq's
> halachic weight beg the question? After all, how do we judge his
> weightiness aside from the acceptability of the pesaqim -- which
> is the very thing you are trying to determine that "weight" to 
> help you decide!

I think that there's a difference between accepting a psak as halacha and
accepting it as a valid shita even if not l'maaseh. I would disagree with
paskening halacha solely based upon halachic weight (I think that would
be imputing the infallability to which RDE correctly objected). But in
the absence of obvious mistake, I would argue that halachic weight should
in most cases give a shita non-l'maaseh validity. Of course that also
begs the question because we don't really have a definition of "obvious
mistake." (Toeh b'dvar mishna? Or maybe something less than that...).

-- Carl

On 10 Sep 2002 at 20:51, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 09:51:10PM -0400, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>: The way I saw it described is Malchiyos=Hashem's omnipotence.
>: Zichronos=His choosing to act based upon our actions, good or bad.
>: Shofaros=ultimate limit on zichronos, as in peshuta le'achareha.

> I had thought of it as:
> Malchiyos: accepting his meluchah belashon hoveh
> Zichronos: belashon avar
> Shofaros: belashon asid

In one of his sichot Rav Pincus zt"l understands Malchuyos as being
what brings us rachamim ba'din. He says that when a King makes the rules
but then leaves their enforcement to judges, the judges have no choice
but to apply the law as written. But when the King Himself is judging,
He can be m'vater on our violations of His law and show mercy to us.

-- 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.

At 09:54 AM 9/10/02 -0400, Arie Folger wrote:
>> 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.

>Doesn't the lashon of sim shalom predate by several centuries any public
>mention of Sephirot, and (assuming you read sefer Yetzirah as refering
>to the Sephirotic system as explained by the kabbalists, at least)
>predates any discussion of hamtaqah?      ... one could not fail to see
>that other ancient tefillot do not allude to this cosmogony, as it is
>undoubtedly sitrei Torah.

>Then again, may be I am wrong. Do you know of other instances where
>ancient tefillot may allude to the Sephirotic cosmogony? ...

Check Vayevarech David! That is where the sefiros are explicit in Tanach. 
It is not a new system! It is as old as the seven days of Creation.

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

From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
> Check Vayevarech David! That is where the sefiros are explicit in Tanach. 
> It is not a new system! It is as old as the seven days of Creation.

The fact that vayevarech david mentions these words does not mean that
they were used in a sephirotic way. As a matter of fact, I did a Bar Ilan
CD search on the terms "netzach tiferes hod" (with any prefix, within 10
words of each other) in all of tanach, and the only pasuk which comes up
is that pasuk. So the Zohar in choosing the names of these sefirot was
basing itself on vayevarech david; there is no indication that David
HaMelech intended to use the sefirot (one would think that if he did,
there would be more than one pasuk in Tehillim using the terms, and even
veyaverech david doesn't have all 7 terms).

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Several things I noticed in Aleynu:

1. In the first paragraph, there is a parallel in the two phrases in each
line; the first phrase deals with the nature of creation (the world's;
the non-Jews', ours).; the second with the nature of destiny.

2. Non-Jews are only mishtachaveh, we are also koreh (bending the knee,
I guess, reflects not just reverence but subservience).

3. I do not understand what "Shechinas b'govhei meromim" adds to "Moshav
yekaro ba'shamayim me'me'al" unless the meromim is Marom Tziyon (the
Gra's girsa does not help).

4. In the second paragraph, the Dover Shalom explains that gilulim
are rituals (lashon "be'glal" - tools to attempt to bring results);
elilim are the deities - we want the rituals to be swept away, and the
deities eradicated.

5. He also says that "L'Taken", "V'kol Bnei Basar" and "L''Hafnos"
are three different madreigos - for the pious there will be tikkun,
for the beinonim the keri'ah and for the resho'im the peni'ah.

I was inspired by something I saw in shul this morning. To think in terms
of a kabboloh for this year to spend at least some minute or two a day
on one or two of the Shesh Mitzvos Temidi'os, i.e., contemplation. Anyone
willing to help me out by checking up on me, please drop me a line!

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

Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
> The issue is not whether your friend lied. The problem is that there are
> now people in the world who feel that they can rely on the "fact" that
> Rav Moshe permited something because an erhliche yid asserted that he
> has reliable sources that it was true. This "hetair" continues to exist
> even though we have now been informed that the reliable sources are now
> a single source from 30 years ago who "might have been misinformed or
> made a mistake about who the Posek was."

I clearly indicated in my original post that my information was second
hand knowledge. I further stsed that I did not see a written Teshuva. It
is therefore relatively clear that no one should take from this that it
is an absolute fact ythe RMF Paskined this way. Never-the-less I DID hear
it in his name by a reliable Ehrliche individual so I felt relatively
comfortable in reporting it to this list. But I will concede your point
that I should have at least been clearer or perhaps not mentioned RMF's
name. My mistake anfd I regret any misleading information resulting from
my post.

>> But as to the essence of what I thought to be his Psak I do not see
>> the problem with it. If indeed the problem of Begged Ish, and Erva
>> are satisfied what is wrong with it? It seems like a reasonable Psak
>> to me. The only issue regarding Erva is the issue of Pisuk Raglayim.
>> If that area is covered by a long jacket, for example, why wouldn't all
>> or most Poskim agree to it's permissibility? Does the jacket have to go
>> below the knee if a woman is wearing pants? I doubt it.

> As I cited in my post. Rav Scheinberg does in fact require that the coat
> reaches to the knees. You in fact orginally asserted that "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."

>> Certainly there is no issue of Tznius either since wearing pants that
>> are not tight is so pervasive and common it is not considered immodest
>> in our societies. Nor is Chukas HaGoy an issue here anymore than wearing
>> a double breasted suit is for a man.

> These issues that you readily dismiss are not dismissed by major poskim
> such as Rav Ovadiya Yosef.

>> As long as the outfit follows parameters of Begged Isha, and there is
>> no Pisuk Raglayim or Tznius issues, it should be 100% Mutar.
>> No?

> 100% Mutar!!!!!! No way! 

MeIkkar Hadin? Why not?

> In particular since you define tznius as what
> is considered as such in the non frum world.

Once you go beyond the issues of Erva then Tznius is relative to societal
norms. For example, If covering the knees is considered covering the
Erva then covering more than the knees is relative to what society deems
Tznius. In some societies exposure of the lower leg below the knee would
be considered UnTznius. Hence, it is unTznius for a Jewish woman to leave
the lower leg uncovered even though it is not technically Erva. But in a
society such as ours, the exposed lower leg is not considered unTznius so
a woman need not cover it up. I think the same argument may be made for
pants, as long as the Pisuk Raglayim is covered. To require extention
of the top to "below the knees" seems like an unecessary step as there
are no longer any Tznius issues.

> BTW I am curious to know how Rabbi S. Fuerst of Chicago would respond
> to your assertions. If you have a chance I'd appreciate you asking him
> since he might be able to clarfiy whether in fact Rav Moshe ever said
> anything about this issue.

I'll try and ask him. But I want to re-iterate that I am conceding that
RMF may not be the Posek who my friend of thirty years ago was reffering
to although she beleived it was.

HM

With regard to my assertion of a change in how we treat different
communities (and I am aware that there were controversies in the past),
RDE disputes that, and suggests no significant change. Of course, it
is difficult to measure, as I wasn't suggesting an absolute change,
but rather that these disputes are far more common, and people are
far readier to impose their standards on others than in the past -
and relative changes are harder to measure and prove.

Thus, look for example, look at the response of much of both the Hungarian
and Litvish communities to RSR Hirsch - clear rejection of his approach
for their communities, but ready acceptance of the legitimacy of that
shitta for his community (even if some later criticized it for not
producing gdole torah, and that it was therefore only acceptable in
its time - few would criticize it for his time, even though many were
passionately opposed to some of his innovations for their own community).
This would be, I think, impossible today.

This could be due to the lack of geographical isolation, so that the
communities are today too intertwined, as RDE suggests. This isn't
happening in far away Frankfurt, it is right in an adjacent community.

I think, however, that it is also due to the intellectual reluctance to
accept elu veelu (in some previous discussions on avodah, it was suggested
by some that the classical concept of a local mara d'atra is no longer
relevant, as telecommunication means that questions can be posed to the
"posek hador" (with, of course, different claimants to the title)),
and that everyone should be kafuf to that posek hador, regardless of
communal traditions.

RDE
> [BTW I don't understand your concept of kvar hora zaken especially the
> relevance to Rav Moshe's tshuva YD 4:6.]

I thought it evident, so let me explain.

In rav Moshe's tshuva, he says that caterers who insist on glatt may use
the keilim of caterers who don't use glatt, as it is not worse than the
case from the rama in yd64:9 - let me cite the seif

sa: the helev that is adherent to the keres under the prisa is assur

rama: and so is the custom in every place, except for the communities
of the rhine, that deal with some of it (memikzato) heter, veeyn mochin
beyadam shekvar hora lahem zaken (we do not rebuke them since the follow
the ruling of a zaken - and in every place that that they forbid it is has
the status of other helev to be batel beshishim, but they do not forbid
the kelim of the rhine communities, since they accept it as permitted

the rama has the concept of kvar hora zaken - we don't rebuke the rhine
communities, as they follow the ruling of a zaken - even though we are
talking about an issur d'oraita. It is not clear (to me) how far this
would extend, and when we invoke this rule (which seems clearly relevant
to our discussion) - I agree with RDE that this is not an absolute rule,
and has been frequently violated - (especially for issues involving
personal status, so the criticsm of the bet din for annulment fits in)
- but the question is when it does apply.

Because of the rule, not only do we not criticize, we also accept the
keilim (and from the language of the rama, it would seem that we accept
the keilim even though we may know that they were recently used - this
isn't a heter based on me'et le'et.

Rav Moshe says that this rule, that if a community follows a certain
heter, then the kelim are acceptable, is also applicable to other issues,
such as glatt vs non glatt and the heter here is also not based on me et
leet, but because the community accepts not glatt (based on legitimate
opinions). This clearly seems to generalize the rule - how far is
not clear.

Meir Shinnar

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


[ 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         ]