Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 049

Thursday, November 7 2002

• Re: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• Astrology
• FW: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• RE: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• RE: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• Re: RE: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• RE: RE: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• Re: RE: RE: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• RE: RE: RE: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• RE: RE: RE: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• head covering
• chanuka away from home

It is not difficult to identify the barely hidden agenda of our two 
esteemed chaverim who so often work hand in hand for the furtherance of 
their common agenda :-).

I think back to the days when I started baistefila and made sure to include 
RMF and RMS so as to have a broad variety of viewpoints. My fondest hopes, 
of course, have been fulfilled ;-) .

I find my good friend RMF's refutations below amusing. He will not
accept anything other than a statement phrased the way he pleases, which,
he knew in advance, does not exist, to whit: "Astrology is false."

The Meiri in Pesachim, on the sugyah of zugos, says explicitly that Chazal
do not make statements like that go directly against the emunos kozvos
of the hamon am for fear of ignorant backlash (paraphrasing from memory)
- this areas is no different.

That the first source, and the second source, according to R' Akiva,
forbid behavior that relies on astrology as antithetical to Judaism,
certainly is logically construed as pronouncing that these pursuits
are false.

Elsewhere, RMS suggests that Chazal (or some of Chazal - RMF's note
to that effect below is well taken, and irrelevant - Chazal were not a
monolith and I did not claim that all Chazal dismissed astrology) may
have believed that mazal has no validity for Jews but does for non-Jews -
which actually is relevant to the pasuk in Vo'eschanon concerning "asher
chalak l'chol ho'amim" and is discussed by the commentators there. It is
an interesting suggestion, but it seems to me that if something lacks
temimus, it is because it is the antithesis of emunah, and goyim are
metzuveh on emunah as well.

KT,
YGB

At 11:12 PM 11/5/02 -0500, Michael Frankel wrote:
>First, I remind RYGB that the issue was whether chazal really did "dismiss
>astrology" as he claims, (or not, as I intimated). Now for RYGB's sources,
>in no particular order:
...

Would the minhag followed by (some) Chassidim of not drinking (red)
wine between 6 and 7 because of Mars be considred to be Astrolgy.

Harry J. Weiss
hjweiss@panix.com

RYGB response
I find my good friend RMF's refutations below amusing. He will not
accept anything other than a statement phrased the way he pleases, which,
he knew in advance, does not exist, to whit: "Astrology is false."

The Meiri in Pesachim, on the sugyah of zugos, says explicitly that Chazal
do not make statements like that go directly against the emunos kozvos
of the hamon am for fear of ignorant backlash (paraphrasing from memory)
- this areas is no different.

Me
This of course, is quite amusing. The initial discussion started when,
in response to my statement that the pshat of the rambam's letter on
astrology (as well as other sources, but let's focus on that) is that
one follows reason over a statement by hazal, citing that one should
not abandon what is "proven by proofs" and go after a statement of hazal,
you said

RYGB
"Proven by proofs" means those found in the Nevi'im and Chazal! (Who,
the Rambam held, were, of course, of keen philosophical capactiy and
wisdom.) See the letter to Marseilles p. 21 (LE ed.), Hil. akum perek
1 and perek 11.

Me
And then you said that hazal often reject astrology. We now understand
that indeed, hazal never publicly reject astrology, yet, somehow "proven
by proofs" is based on maamre hazal rather than on logic..Can you suggest
the proofs? (by the way, I thought you were refering to those maamarim
by TI as referencing sources from hazal, rather than as primary data -
my mistake)

RYGB
That the first source, and the second source, according to R' Akiva,
forbid behavior that relies on astrology as antithetical to Judaism,
certainly is logically construed as pronouncing that these pursuits
are false.

Me
THat conclusion is quite simply false, which is why I pointed out to
the discussion in the sugya above about ov - the gmara seems to believe
that ov is quite efficacious (which is also the plain pshat of the
story of shaul...), even though it is quite clear that ov is forbidden.
RYGB's argument would imply as well that as witchcraft is forbidden
(clear agreement by hazal), all hazal agree that it is false - and we
know that that was an area of major controversy.

RYGB
Elsewhere, RMS suggests that Chazal (or some of Chazal - RMF's note
to that effect below is well taken, and irrelevant - Chazal were not a
monolith and I did not claim that all Chazal dismissed astrology) may
have believed that mazal has no validity for Jews but does for non-Jews -
which actually is relevant to the pasuk in Vo'eschanon concerning "asher
chalak l'chol ho'amim" and is discussed by the commentators there. It is
an interesting suggestion, but it seems to me that if something lacks
temimus, it is because it is the antithesis of emunah, and goyim are
metzuveh on emunah as well.

Me
Again, this completely misunderstands the gmara. The issue of
temimut reflects, again, that there are somethings that shouldn't be
done - hanistarot lahashem - rather than that those things are false.
There isn't even a hint that astrology is false - as a matter of fact,
the pshat is that astrology works, because if astrology was false and
just parlor tricks, the problem of using astrology wouldn't be temimut
but shtut (but I forgot that being a shoteh wasn't forbidden...:-))

lastly, WADR, RYBG misunderstands the notion of eyn mazal leyisrael -
the issue isn't whether goyim are allowed to practice astrology while
Yisrael is not(and RYGB might be the first to suggest that there is an
issur on goyim to practice astrology - makom hinichu lo lehitagder bo...),
but rather that non Jews are actually subject to the forces of astrology,
while am yisrael are not.

Meir Shinnar

Here we go round...

At 02:52 PM 11/7/02 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>And then you said that hazal often reject astrology.  We now understand that
>indeed, hazal never publicly reject astrology, yet, somehow "proven by
>proofs" is based on maamre hazal rather than on logic..Can you suggest the
>proofs? (by the way, I thought you were refering to those maamarim by TI as
>referencing sources from hazal, rather than as primary data - my mistake)

I did not mean them as primary data. The Chazals are the primary
data. They were additional references.

I am not sure you understand what I said. Oh well. What I said is that
some Chazal reject astrology and this, on the face of matters, should
be taken to mean that it is false.

>THat conclusion is quite simply false, which is why I pointed out to the
>discussion in the sugya above about ov - the gmara seems to believe that ov
>is quite efficacious (which is also the plain pshat of the story of
>shaul...), even though it is quite clear that ov is forbidden.  RYGB's
>argument would imply as well that as witchcraft is forbidden (clear
>agreement by hazal), all hazal agree that it is false - and we know that
>that was an area of major controversy.

But that is the point! And your point!

You, my esteemed interlocutors, would ave us believe that the Radak,
et al, who took the Ov story as hallucination made that position up and
argue on Chazal (which clears you way for all sorts of intellectual
dilettantism...). My point is that there were opinions in Chazal
(NOT ALL!) that held it bogus as well!

Your theological stance on this issue will not allow you to concede no
matter what...

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

RYGB and me...

Here we go round...

At 02:52 PM 11/7/02 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>And then you said that hazal often reject astrology.  We now understand that
>indeed, hazal never publicly reject astrology, yet, somehow "proven by
>proofs" is based on maamre hazal rather than on logic..Can you suggest the
>proofs? (by the way, I thought you were refering to those maamarim by TI as
>referencing sources from hazal, rather than as primary data - my mistake)

RYGB
I did not mean them as primary data. The Chazals are the primary data. They 
were additional references.

me
But there is no primary data...

me
I am not sure you understand what I said. Oh well. What I said is that
some Chazal reject astrology and this, on the face of matters, should
be taken to mean that it is false.

Where do they reject astrology is the question? There is no such
rejection of astrology anywhere in hazal, as you concede. What there
is an objection to the use of astrology, as there is to the use of ov,
to the use of witchcraft, etc.

There is (unless you have other sources) no source in hazal to suggest
your logic - that the fact that something is forbidden means that it
is false. There are many maamre hazal which suggest that there is truth
to these forbidden activities, but I know of none that go the other way
- that suggest that there is no truth. Your citation of the Meiri seems
to concede the point.

 By the way, the Meiri is actually arguing my position - the rambam's
position is not against the true position of hazal, as they hid it.
 one uses one's reason against the simple pshat of maamre hazal to
understand the truth, even if there is no source from hazal that states
openly what one thinks the truth is. However, one then understands
what hazal really meant. His position is not based on maamre hazal,
even though, if one truly understands hazal, it is not against them..

Therefore, the fact that the rambam (and the radak, and others) are
willing to interprete astrology, etc as false, and when the rambam says
"proven by proofs" - he is clearly not talking about maamre hazal as
the source for that.

Me
>THat conclusion is quite simply false, which is why I pointed out to the
>discussion in the sugya above about ov - the gmara seems to believe that ov
>is quite efficacious (which is also the plain pshat of the story of
>shaul...), even though it is quite clear that ov is forbidden.  RYGB's
>argument would imply as well that as witchcraft is forbidden (clear
>agreement by hazal), all hazal agree that it is false - and we know that
>that was an area of major controversy.

RYGB
But that is the point! And your point!

Me
No, an area of controversy between the rambam and others - I don't know
of any controversy in hazal - which is precisely the point.

RYGB
You, my esteemed interlocutors, would ave us believe that the Radak,
et al, who took the Ov story as hallucination made that position up and
argue on Chazal (which clears you way for all sorts of intellectual
dilettantism...). My point is that there were opinions in Chazal
(NOT ALL!) that held it bogus as well!

Find one. That has been the question. So far, there has not been brought
down a single maamar hazal that held it to be bogus, only to be forbidden
- and we know that that is not quite the same...

RYGB
Your theological stance on this issue will not allow you to concede no
matter what...

me
I couldn't have said it better myself.

Meir SHinnar

"Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu> writes on Thu, 7 Nov 2002 15:48:37 
-0500 : 
> me 
> But there is no primary data... 

OK, exasperation is beginning to set in here... 

Lookit, RMS (and RMF), you fellas might disagree with the Rambam (Hil. AZ
11:9) - l'shitaschem, why not?). BUT HE HOLDS THAT THE GEMARA IN SANHEDRIN
SAYS THAT ASTROLOGY IS BOGUS! Thus, unless you would like to say that the
Rambam was being nefarious and putting his own agenda into the Gemara,
HE HELD CHAZAL DECLARED ASTROLOGY TO BE INVALID.

>  By the way, the Meiri is actually arguing my position - the rambam's 
> position is not against the true position of hazal, as they hid it. 
>  one uses one's reason against the simple pshat of maamre hazal to 
> understand the truth, even if there is no source from hazal that states 
> openly what one thinks the truth is. However, one then understands what 
> hazal really meant. His position is not based on maamre hazal, even though, 
> if one truly understands hazal, it is not against them.. 
> 

The conclusion is utterly false and counteracts basic assumptions about
the chain of mesorah and the qualities of the Rishonim.

In a nutshell, there are numerous times Poskim say about the Behag,
the Rach and the Rif "she'kol divreihem divrei Kabbalah." I saw that
that is said about Rav Hai Gaon, the She'iltos, and all the Ge'onim as
well - even about the Rokei'ach (although there the meaning probably
has something to do with Kabbalah in the mystical sense.

Simply put, Rishonim don't make up stuff. They interpret, extrapolate BUT
NOT MAKE UP SHITTOS BASED ON BOICH SEVAROS OF FALLIBLE HUMAN LOGIC. The
Rambam was from the Beis Medrash of the Rach and the Rif. We do not EVER
assume about a Rishon that on his own he departed from Chazal and used
his own "logic" to counter their positions. OF WHAT USE IS MESORAH IF
IT IS SUBJECT TO THE WHIM OF THE TRANSMITTER ANYWAY?

As I said, Chazal were not monolithic, and according to the Yerushalmi
in Sanhedrin, cited by the Ritva in Eruvin, everything has 49 panim
tamei and 49 panim tahor. But the Rishonim did not make up a 99th pan.

BTW, the Kuzari interprets HKB"H's remark to Avraham Avinu "Tzei
mei'Itztagninus shelcha" as a negation of astrology - not just its
relevance to AA - as well. Not proof, of course, right? ;-)

You guys don't like the Rishonim's understanding of Chazal; you protest
that is is not "incotrovertible" or whatever you said - IMMATERIAL!!! The
Rishonim held that to be the PSHAT in these words of Chazal, not that
they were staring down their noses from their ivory towers with a caustic
and critical eye and determining which Chazals suited their intellectual
fancy and which not.

Have I made myself clear? :-)

As always, 
KT, 
YGB 

> But there is no primary data... 
> 
RYGB and me

OK, exasperation is beginning to set in here... 

RYGB
Lookit, RMS (and RMF), you fellas might disagree with the Rambam (Hil. AZ
11:9) - l'shitaschem, why not?). BUT HE HOLDS THAT THE GEMARA IN SANHEDRIN
SAYS THAT ASTROLOGY IS BOGUS! Thus, unless you would like to say that the
Rambam was being nefarious and putting his own agenda into the Gemara,
HE HELD CHAZAL DECLARED ASTROLOGY TO BE INVALID.

me
That is not what the rambam says. He says that astrology falls under the
issur of lo teonenu (the gmara in sanhedrin) and that astrology is false -
nowhere does he say that that is what the gmara says, precisely the issue.

me (old)
>  By the way, the Meiri is actually arguing my position - the rambam's 
> position is not against the true position of hazal, as they hid it. 
>  one uses one's reason against the simple pshat of maamre hazal to 
> understand the truth, even if there is no source from hazal that states 
> openly what one thinks the truth is. However, one then understands what 
> hazal really meant. His position is not based on maamre hazal, even though, 
> if one truly understands hazal, it is not against them.. 
> 
RYGB
The conclusion is utterly false and counteracts basic assumptions about
the chain of mesorah and the qualities of the Rishonim.

me
Your basic assumptions, not basic assumptions....

RYGB
In a nutshell, there are numerous times Poskim say about the Behag,
the Rach and the Rif "she'kol divreihem divrei Kabbalah." I saw that
that is said about Rav Hai Gaon, the She'iltos, and all the Ge'onim as
well - even about the Rokei'ach (although there the meaning probably
has something to do with Kabbalah in the mystical sense.


me
granted - but the rambam distinguishes between daat and kabbala. None of
the sources that you cite grants reason the role that the rambam does.
(By the way, Rav Hai Gaon's position on aggadta is not quite that it is
all divre kabbala, and there is no good reason to distinguish what we
are discussing from aggadta outside of "basic assumptions")

RYGB
Simply put, Rishonim don't make up stuff. They interpret, extrapolate BUT
NOT MAKE UP SHITTOS BASED ON BOICH SEVAROS OF FALLIBLE HUMAN LOGIC. The
Rambam was from the Beis Medrash of the Rach and the Rif. We do not EVER
assume about a

Rishon that on his own he departed from Chazal and used his own "logic"
to counter their positions. OF WHAT USE IS MESORAH IF IT IS SUBJECT TO
THE WHIM OF THE TRANSMITTER ANYWAY?

Me
Mesora applies to halacha, which includes some aspects of ikkare hadat.
It does not apply to all aspects of the torah shebealpe - which is
precisely the rambam's (and rav hai gaon's) point. The rambam is
different than hai gaon in holding to the essential truth of divre
hazal - but not that the truth is the pshat, nor does he hold that his
interpretation is based on a mesora (several times in the more nevuchim
he specifically rejects this)

RYGB
As I said, Chazal were not monolithic, and according to the Yerushalmi
in Sanhedrin, cited by the Ritva in Eruvin, everything has 49 panim
tamei and 49 panim tahor. But the Rishonim did not make up a 99th pan.

BTW, the Kuzari interprets HKB"H's remark to Avraham Avinu "Tzei
mei'Itztagninus shelcha" as a negation of astrology - not just its
relevance to AA - as well. Not proof, of course, right? ;-)

Me

We are talking about hazal. CLearly there are rishonim who reject
astrology, just as others accept it (eg Ibn Ezra). The Kuzari is proof
of how RYHL learned pshat...

However, about astrology, we have no evidence of any hazal who rejected
the "truth" of astrology

RYGB

You guys don't like the Rishonim's understanding of Chazal; you protest
that is is not "incotrovertible" or whatever you said - IMMATERIAL!!! The
Rishonim held that to be the PSHAT in these words of Chazal, not that
they were staring down their noses from their ivory towers with a caustic
and critical eye and determining which Chazals suited their intellectual
fancy and which not.

me

Actually, I do like rishonim's understanding of chazal. I don't like
the modern spin that is being taken here, especially when it leads to
misunderstanding of rishonim.

The rambam would argue that given what we know from our daat, clearly
hazal must have held a certain way, and the pshat must therefore be this.
However, that is not based on a mesora. It isn't that the pshat in the
gmara led him to his conclusion.

RYGB

Have I made myself clear? :-) 

Me

You have made your theological position and assumptions extremely
clear. YOu have formulated a consistent theological position why the
rambam and the meiri couldn't possibly hold one way. Unfortunately,
they do...

Note that the rambam uses the phrase kabbalat hadat (similar, although
not identical to divre kabbala) as a distinct realm from daat - and
daat is the reason one can reject a maamar hazal (at least as being
pshat). Your basic assumptions, while held by many, are incomptible
with the rambam, which explains why you refuse to read what the rambam
himself clearly says.

Meir Shinnar 

There is not much left to say, except that your understanding of our
religion is not my understanding of our religion. Your mode of practice
likely resembles mine, but the theology that you espouse is k'rachok
mizrach me'ma'arav from mine.

A few brief comments only. 

"Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu> writes on Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:44:25 
-0500 : 
> That is not what the rambam says.  He says that astrology falls under the 
> issur of lo teonenu (the gmara in sanhedrin) and that astrology is false - 
> nowhere does he say that that is what the gmara says, precisely the issue. 
> 

(Major groan). See also there Halacha 16. Your interpretation of
the Rambam is utterly untenable, and can only be attributed to your
determination to prove your position, which you yourself invented.

> Your basic assumptions, not basic assumptions.... 

No, basic assumptions... 

> granted - but the rambam distinguishes between daat and kabbala.  None of 
> the sources that you cite grants reason the role that the rambam does.  (By 
> the way, Rav Hai Gaon's position on aggadta is not quite that it is all 
> divre kabbala, and there is no good reason to distinguish what we are 
> discussing from aggadta outside of "basic assumptions") 
> 

Who says?! 

> Mesora applies to halacha, which includes some aspects of ikkare hadat.  It 
> does not apply to all aspects of the torah shebealpe - which is precisely 
> the rambam's (and rav hai gaon's) point.  The rambam is different than hai 
> gaon in holding to the essential truth of divre hazal - but not that the 
> truth is the pshat, nor does he hold that his interpretation is based on a 
> mesora (several times in the more nevuchim he specifically rejects this) 

You still haven't told us which ones of the ikkarei ha'das... 

>  Note that the rambam uses the phrase kabbalat hadat (similar, although not 
> identical to divre kabbala) as a distinct realm from daat - and daat is the 
> reason one can reject a maamar hazal (at least as being pshat). Your basic 
> assumptions, while held by many, are incomptible with the rambam, which 
> explains why you refuse to read what the rambam himself clearly says. 
> 

My basic assumptions are in no way different than those of the
Rambam. Sorry. The Rambam and (l'havdil) I are on the same page.

KT, 
YGB 

both of us

A few brief comments only. 

"Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu> writes on Thu, 7 Nov 2002 19:44:25 
-0500 : 
> That is not what the rambam says.  He says that astrology falls under the 
> issur of lo teonenu (the gmara in sanhedrin) and that astrology is false -
> nowhere does he say that that is what the gmara says, precisely the issue.
> 
RYGB
(Major groan). See also there Halacha 16. Your interpretation of
the Rambam is utterly untenable, and can only be attributed to your
determination to prove your position, which you yourself invented.

Me

Major major groan

Everybody agrees that the rambam holds that astrology, kishuf, etc are all
"bogus". Furthermore, everyone agrees that the rambam would understand
pshat in almost all (?all) maamre hazal to reflect that understanding.

The question is what is the source of this understanding. After all, it
is not explicit in hazal, and other major rishonim with the same sources
and having a mesora disagree. Nor does it reflect his choice of which
maamre hazal - it occurs in instances where there is no maamar chazal
which is in clear support, while there are other maamre hazal that seem
pashut to oppose his understanding (although they could be reinterpreted)-
clearly the case in astrology (and the meiri even gave a justification of
why there were no maamre hazal in opposition to astrology, witchcraft etc)

You suggest that the rambam is reflecting a mesora of understanding hazal,
and his ideas reflect that mesora. However, there is no evidence of that.
Indeed, not only does the rambam almost never say that his position
is based on a mesora of understanding divre hazal (as he does say with
regard to divre halacha) - it is explicitly rejected by the rambam.

Rather, I would suggest that the only mesora that is reflected in the
rambam is precisely the mesora that these types of divre hazal may be
subject to reinterpretation and non pshat understanding - reflected in
Hai gaon, and your position is actually a rejection of this mesora.

It is after all, quite pashut in the rambam, and explicitly stated, that
one does not come to this understanding simply by looking at maamre hazal
and trying to understand pshat, nor does it come to us by a mesora. (I
don't have my more nevuchim at work, but he several times says that
he did not arrive at his conclusions through mesora, and similarly, in
his letters, he differentiates mesora (kabbala) from daat.) Indeed, he
argues that a whole book is needed to understand how to understand hazal -
because simple pshat and the mesora may lead you to wrong conclusions.

 Rather, this understanding is conditioned by daat - by reason, and the
belief that hazal, as you said, " the Rambam held, were, of course, of
keen philosophical capactiy and wisdom." and therefore must have held
beliefs that reflected this keen philosophical capacity and wisdom. In
understanding the pshat of maamre hazal, that has to be understood, and
understanding a maamar hazal in a way that suggests that hazal were not
of keen philosophical capacity is to denigrate hazal (exactly my position
on the maamar that you brought about atzat gdolim..). In some cases,
one can even ignore isolated maamre hazal (as he says explicitly in his
letter on astrology

>This should not cause you any difficulty, that it is not appropriate that
>a man should leave halacha lemaa'se and go after different questions and
>answers, and similarly it is not appropriate for a man to leave the
>words of reason that were already proven by proofs, and shake his hands
>from them, and rely on a statement of one of the chachamim, that it is
>possible that he forgot something, or that there is in those words a
>hint (remez), or he said that according to the hour and an event that
>was before him.

The issue is what it means by proofs - and the Meiri (and our previous
discussions) document that unlike your claim that the proofs are based
on maamre hazal and neviim, there is no maamar hazal that is the basis
of this proof - and it is not based on a mesora of what the maamre
hazal really means - this proof is based on the words of reason, and
it is precisely because of the proofs of the words of reason that we
understand the words of hazal to reject the truth of astrology and kishuf.

This is explicit. Our understanding of divre hazal (in hashkafa and
aggadta) is not determined by mesora (except for the mesora that we have
that freedom). The rejection of the pshat of a maamar hazal is not
because there is a mesora that that it is not the pshat, but because
it contradicts the words of reason. There must have been some reason
(that we may not immediately know - but it may involve an error - that he
forgot something - or that it reflects some hidden meaning - but not that
we have a mesora that this maamar hazal means something that is different.

This is deeply troubling to many, and if you think we have completely
different ideologies - we probably do, but yours is plain and simple
incompatible with explicit statements in the rambam. I would add that
this different approach in understanding the rambam (and the view that
the rambam's approach may be, with suitable humility, ours) is one of
the main fault lines between MO and RW, and this discussion illustrates
how unbridgeable the gap is.

Meir Shinnar

At 08:56 PM 11/7/02 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>is one of the main
>fault lines between MO and RW, and this discussion illustrates how
>unbridgeable the gap is.

You may be MO, but I am not RW. The gap is between the mainstream and you, 
not RW and MO.

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

re: head covering:
"Now there are written Teshuvos about when it is ever even permissble
to walk around without a head-covering. Can anyone trace how and when
this happened?

If I am not mistaken bareheadedness has more to do with Chukas HaGoy then
anything else. If so, it must not have been considered Chukas HaGoy to
walk around bearheaded. When did this change?"


The taz in o"H 8 discusses head covering. He lists a number of reasons,
and then mentions chukas akum. Agav. the mMelamed Lehoil discusses this,
and grapples with a situationin which a Jew is required to take off
his hat in court. Rav Moshe also delas with this question, and rejects
the application of chukas akum, in maerica, or giluy rosh. (which the
melamed lehoil and r moshe disagree with). He implies that before his
time, it wasn't viewed as a chukas akum but rather as a midas chasidus.

david brofsky

ps I think a good question would be - did eastern euorpean professionals,
in the cities (not farmers and merchants) go "begiluy rosh" like their
german brethren? In other words, german Jews seemed to have lived,
for the most part, as a part of a civilized society. Most of eastern
european Jewry didn;t.

pps (pss?) what about kisuy rosh for women? the german community seems to
have kept this halakha very strictly, while there is evidence of laxity
in the (very religious) lithuanian community.

"When Hanoukah begins on Friday night this couple will not be permitted
to light a Menorah in their room as per hotel regulations. There will
be no one back home that will be lighting for this couple to rely upon.

Should they make the berakhah of Shehehiyanou upon seeing any menorah
lit on the streets of Jerusalem or rather wait till they return home in
the middle of the holiday to begin lighting and say all the berakhot at
that time?"

one should check the actual policy of the hotel.i assume they allow
lighting in the hotel lobby or dining room.

the halakha actually prefers lighting in a pesach hehazter habayis (rashi
vs tos). the acharonim debate the status of a stairwell in an apt building
(griz vs hazon ish). rav lichtenstein instructed us the in the yeshiva
to light downstairs in the entrance to the (kollel) building.

could one make the same arguement for the hotel lobby?

furthermore, for those who prefer lighting in a makom achila, the dining
room (if you eat meals their) may be ideal?

david brofsky

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


[ 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         ]