Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 084

Tuesday, January 27 2004

• Medical Treatment of Gentiles on Shabbos
• Re: Q re Shoftim 6:11
• shul member question
• 10th of Tevet
• Re: 10th of Tevet
• zfardea=crocodile?
• Re: Mi she'asa nisim
• interesting work
• Re: Medical Treatment of Gentiles on Shabbos
• Eved Ivri - from Areivim
• Re: Slavery in the Torah
• Re: Slavery in the Torah
• Re: Slavery in the Torah
• Re: Slavery
• Re: Slavery in the Torah
• Re: Medical Treatment of Gentiles on Shabbos
• Re: Medical Treatment of Gentiles on Shabbos
• Re: Mi she'asa nisi
• Minyan in Plane -- need mar'eh maqom
• Re: Halloween
• The insitution of slavery/avdus
• Re: Medical Treatment of Gentiles on Shabbos
• Re: Minyan in Plane -- need mar'eh maqom

Gershon Dubin asked on Areivim:
>Is there any difference lehalacha between pikuach nefesh
>for a Jew and a nonJew.

I gave a reference to an article I posted at
<http://www.aishdas.org/student/shabbat.htm> and particularly note 7.
Gershon said that he could not find the reference to Iggeros Moshe and
Shemiras Shabbos KeHilchasah. See Iggeros Moshe, Orach Chaim vol. 4 no. 79
(incorrectly referenced in the article [Just corrected. -mi]). The SSKH
reference is to chapter 40 footnote 42.

The conclusion that I see emerging from the poskim is that a doctor MUST
try to avoid being in a position in which he will have to heal non-Jews
and non-religious Jews on Shabbos. But if he is in such a position then he
must do everything possible to save his patients, regardless of who they
are (regarding bureaucratic issues, such as signing things, ask your LOR).

There is no reason, though, for a frum doctor to try to avoid having to
heal a religious Jew on Shabbos.

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

From: Michael Poppers
> Why is Yoash called "avi ho-ezri" instead of "ho-aviezri" (see RaShY ad
> loc), and what's the implication for compound-noun names? Thanks.

> P.S. Please excuse my not researching this issue before posting it --
> I'm about to leave my cousin's house in Ramot for the Kosel and may not
> have a chance to "hit the books" later today.

Took a look at my cousin's concordance after he found it for me in his
library (it was well-hidden :-)). Of all the compound-noun names whose
first noun is "av" (eg "Avishai"), looks like only "Aviezri" has variants
(besides "Avi HoEzri," "Ee-ezer" [in P'Pi-n'chas]). Not sure how that
helps explain "Avi HoEzri," but I thought I would mention it.

All the best from
 - Michael Poppers via RIM pager

if anyone has sources and psak on the following issue

can [should] a shul limit the right to do the following to only
members---
a. daven in the shul shabbat
b. "         "       weekdays
c.daven before the amud at any time
d.participate in any other shul activities- shiurim , trips, book
sales etc

does it matter if the person has financial resources to be a member [
i e IS a paying member somewhere else]

[Micha:]
> I'm not sure why you raise this question. You reopen the question without
> explaining what you feel is wrong with my suggestion in the post to which
> you're replying, that the problem was in the motive? The LXX was produced
> under duress, because of coersion applied by Ptolmy. I therefore suggested
> that it was as treif in motive as the KJV -- one was in order to allow
> the accretion of the Jewish religion into the Hellenist one, the other
> to allow its inclusion in a religion derived from the the Hellenist one.

I think that the rationale was different. The Mishna in Sofrim 1,7 says
that the day that it was translated was as bad for Israel as the day
on which they made the eigel. So we see that it is substitution of chol
for kodesh that was the problem. Tehilim 106,2: and they exchanged their
glory for a form of an ox that eats grass...

M. Levin

On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 11:01:26AM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: I think that the rationale was different. The Mishna in Sofrim 1,7 says
: that the day that it was translated was as bad for Israel as the day
: on which they made the eigel. So we see that it is substitution of chol
: for kodesh that was the problem. Tehilim 106,2: and they exchanged their
: glory for a form of an ox that eats grass...

If so, why are the Targumim and Acquilas's translation lauded?

We have a number of cases before us and we're trying to find
VIDC. Addressing just the one doesn't help me understand where you're
going with this.

-mi

<http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Eparasha/vaera/spe.html>

SBA Wrote
> And does anyone comment about what the geula has to do with RC or the
> Shabbos prior?

> Why this special and unique tefilah?

IIRC I once saw in the sidur of RSRH that we say mi she`asa nisim by
kidush hachoidesh because when we are mekayem that mitzva we remind
ourselves of the first mitzva we were given by geulas mitzrayim which
was mitzvas kidush hachodesh.

Yoel

<http://www.uwm.edu/~corre/buxdorf/>
a book from 1640 xtian hebraist on jewish practices...

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 08:44:11 -0600 (CST) "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
writes:
> 1. a doctor MUST try to avoid being in a position in which he will have
> to heal non-Jews and non-religious Jews on Shabbos.

> 2. But if he is in such a position then he must do everything possible
> to save his patients, regardless of who they are (regarding bureaucratic
> issues, such as signing things, ask your LOR).

> 3. There is no reason, though, for a frum doctor to try to avoid having
> to heal a religious Jew on Shabbos.

This meshes with my experience, both lehalacha and lema'aseh. Thank you;
I had been getting the impression from other posters that #1 is not true,
having been replaced by a combination of #2 & #3.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> The fact is that an Eved Ivri isd a slave. His Halachos are obviously
> different but a Jew is permitted to sell himself into slavery for a
> minimum of six years and ther master does indeed own hos body for
> wither manual labor or procreation with a Shifcha for purposes of
> producing more slaves. The fact that we drill his ear in the sevnth
> year if he wants to stay with his Shfcha/wife is precisely because we
> want to disabuse him and the rest of Klal Israel of the notion that
> man can indefinaelty own his fellow man and only God can do that. But
> Man can own his fellow man for an indefinite amount of time and can
> sell himself into dlavery.

I don't agree. He is a servant but not slave. What type of kinyan is
there for an ever ivri. Is it a kinyan haguf or not.

For a slave mah shekana avdo kana rabo. That is not true for an eved ivri.

How does an eved ivri get freed. Is a get shicrur required.

I think it is more like an indenture servitude and not slavery.

From a disscussion on Areivim about cruelty to an eved knaani
> SBA wrote:
> Gaining freedom via shein ve'ayin - is a BIG deal IMHO. It is a
> partial safeguard against unreasonable violence.

> Zev Sero wrote:
> Not really, you just have to be careful where you hit.  Even if he
> dies as the ultimate result of the beating, the Torah lets you off
> 'ki kaspo hu'.  Out-and-out murdering a slave is, of course, not
> allowed, just as it wasn't allowed in the South.

R' SBA's reasoning is more in line with the what the Netziv writes in
his Hemek Davar, Parshas Mishpotim, Shmois 21:26

the monetary punishment for shein ve-ayin is MUCH greater than knocking
out shein ve-ayin of 'stam a yid'...the reason is because when one knocks
out the eye of another, it probably was due to some disagreement or fight
and in the course of fighting, one got a little 'too hot under the collar'
and lost his cool.

Not so by an eved...the hitting of an eved is usualy NOT due to a
disagreement or fight BUT rather because the eved probably did not heed
his masters orders.. if a yid can work himself up into such ka'as and
rage to hit the eved SO SEVERLY that he looses an eye..the punishment
for such beahvior is MUCH GREATER, thus he looses the complete eved...

and this from his peirush on Shmois 21:20
v'chi yakeh ish es avdoi...ba'sheivet umeis tachas yodoi...nokoim yinokeim

for killing your eved k'naani through beating with a 'sheivet' you get
'misas sayef' as per kabolas ch"zal brought down by Rashi

nokoim yinokeim,according to the Netziv, has more meaning than just the
death penalty, it also means 'yinokeim min hashomayim'

if one hits his eved with a staf and the eved dies..than he had to hit
him with SUCH ACHZORIUS that the eved suffered 'gevaldigeh yesurim'
for some prolonged duration until he actulay died...

for inflicting such achzorius and yesurim on another human being,
even being a non-jew, and even being 'kaspoi'... for THAT the master
has a much greater sin than if he would have killed without prolonged
yesurim..(i.e. using a sword).. and therefore except for the 'misas
sayef' he has a sin 'klapei shomayim' as well

in the next posuk The Netziv says that if the eved lived 24 hours
after he got his beating...that shows that the beating wasn't with such
ferocity..and even if indications are that he DID get a severe beating,
but because 'ki kaspoi hu', the master is permitted to hit him.

Simcha G

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> The word "eved" is used for both "servant" and "slave." Which meaning is
> intended is often clear from the context, but not always. And because
> loshon hakodesh fails to distinguish clearly between the two meanings
> of the word "eved," there is a clear implication that the difference
> between the two categories is not as cut and dried as we imagine.

When was the last time anyone pierced a servant's ear who wanted to
continue living (for up to fifty years) with his Shifcha under his
master's "roof"?

HM

Chana Luntz wrote:
>> None of this affects the basic status of the eved kenaani, which is 
>> that of a slave in the full meaning of the word.  The fact that we are 
>> exhorted to treat slaves kindly changes nothing - many non-Jewish 
>> ethicists also exhorted people to treat their slaves kindly....
>>                                  But it wasn't legally required, so 
>> there were many who did not; and it isn't required by the Torah either.

> Do you think they followed the halacha set out in Yoreh Deah siman 267 
> si'if 3 and 4 in the deep south as a matter of law?

> I quote:
> (3) If one acquires an eved from a non Jew we say to him " do you want 
> to enter into the category of an Jewish slave (avdei yisroel v'thiyeh 
> mhakasherim) or not?

I have already noted that a big flaw in justifying the specific
implementation of slavery in the southern USA is that a ben-noach cannot
have a kinyan haguf on a person. So even though the Torah approves the
principle of chattel slavery (kinyan haguf), the actual slavery that went
on may not have been exactly kehalacha (though the reasons why this is
so are material for the Grama thread - this is yet another difference
between yisrael laumot, that "atem konim mehem, velo hem konim mikem".

However, see YD 267:10, that someone captured in war (and according
to many even at a time of peace, if the capture was legal by the local
laws), has a kinyan haguf even without tevilla; it would follow that even
a ben-noach has a kinyan haguf in such a case. All the slaves who were
bought in African markets and transported to the New World can be presumed
to have been lawful captures by the laws of the African nations where they
were bought, and therefore the owners did have a kinyan haguf in them. At
least, if we assume the whole concept of dina demalchuta really applies.

> The point is - as clearly set out above - no-one can become an eved 
> cnani if they do not choose to be an eved cnani (obviously, because it 
> involves accepting ohel malchus shamayim, and being chayav in mitzvos 
> k'isha).  Think about what that means for a moment about the institution.

We are talking here (or at least I thought we were talking here) about
the principle that slavery, full chattel slavery, including the right
to treat the slave so cruelly that it is not appropriate for a yid to
behave so, is sanctioned by the Torah. I do not believe that the slave's
consent is required for that kinyan haguf to be valid. Rather, since the
kinyan haguf comes about through tevilla leshem avdut, and that tevilla
must be consensual for an adult (because it involves kabalat hamitzvot),
the result is, as you say, that most first-generation avadim knaanim did
consent to their status. Of course, this consent may be obtained under
duress, i.e. if he doesn't consent he will be sold to an arel, who will
not treat him as a zera Avraham treats his slaves. And a katan may be
tovelled 'al daat bet din' and then treated brutally, and there is no
indication that he can withdraw consent when he grows up - because it's
not the kinyan haguf, but the chiyuv bemitzvot, that requires consent.
What's more, see Shach YD 124:6, that Rashi holds that you do not need
any sort of consent, and the Ran and other rishonim may agree with him.

-- 
Zev Sero               I must say, I actually think what we learned during
zev@sero.name          the inspections made Iraq a more dangerous place
                        potentially than in fact we thought it was even
                        before the war.                         - David Kay

All the halachot we have been discussing (on Areivim) have been to do
with a Jew owning a slave - are there any halachot abouts the rights of
a nochri to own a slave? Given that a nochri does not have any special
relationship with the k'na'anim, could he hold one as a slave and have the
same rights as a Jew? What about other nochri'im who are not k'na'anim?
It would seem that this is a much more pertinent question, given that
all the historical cases that have been raised are cases of slavery
among non-Jews.

Jonathan Cohen
jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz

RZS writes:
>I have already noted that a big flaw in justifying the 
>specific implementation of slavery in the southern USA is 
>that a ben-noach cannot have a kinyan haguf on a person.  So 

That was not what I was focussing on - but on the fact that chattel
slavery according to Torah goes hand in hand with kabbalat ohel malchut
shamayim, which needs to be chosen by the person in question, ie it is
a package deal, and they need to choose the package.

It is this distinction which to my mind is critical - what it means,
in fact, is that a non Jew is "allowed" to choose to be a slave ,whereas
a Jew is not (to the same extent - in any event, only to the extent of
being an eved ivri).

>However, see YD 267:10, that someone captured in war (and 
>according to many even at a time of peace, if the capture 
>was legal by the local laws), has a kinyan haguf even 
>without tevilla; it would follow that even a ben-noach has a 
>kinyan haguf in such a case. 

This follows from dina d'malchusa dina. If you say that all of our
contracts etc that we excute today are valid despite them not fulfilling
the contractual requirements of the halacha, and if you say property is
acquired and disposed of and defined by the local law (which is how dina
d'malchusa dina operates), then all this is saying is dina d'malchusa
dina. That does not necessarily mean that the law is good, or right,
- otherwise you would be giving Torah imprimature to every goyishe
legal system (which would be great for me, and all of us other lawyers,
I guess it would mean we are doing Torah all the time, but something
I don't think that is the general position). Another alternative is to
say that the legal systems of the non Jewish nations are only valid to
the extent that they conform to Torah law - which indeed would make our
operation within such a society impossible.

However you appear to be jumping from - the Torah recognises that if you
live within a goyishe society, their rules as to property and contracts
govern, to what happens under such laws is therefore approved of under
the Torah viewpoint.

> All the slaves who were bought in African markets and 
>transported to the New World can be presumed to have been 
>lawful captures by the laws of the African nations where 
>they were bought, and therefore the owners did
>have a kinyan haguf in them. 

Actually, from what I understand there was a lot of straight kidnapping
- so I doubt how much legality you can apply to it that way. Given the
shiva mitzvos benei noach, I would have thought that a goyishe kidnapper
too was chayav misa.

>We are talking here (or at least I thought we were talking 
>here) about the principle that slavery, full chattel 
>slavery, including the right to treat the slave so cruelly 
>that it is not appropriate for a yid to
>behave so, is sanctioned by the Torah.  I do not believe 
>that the slave's consent is required for that kinyan haguf 
>to be valid.

The point is that slavery al pi haTorah must go hand in hand with
kabbalat hamitzvot and that you cannot separate the two. And since
the second requires consent, so does the first. That makes it a very
different animal from the slavery of the deep south.

>Of course, this consent may be obtained under duress, i.e. 
>if he doesn't consent he will be sold to an arel, who will 
>not treat him as a zera Avraham treats his slaves. 

Or, of course, he could toyvel himself l'shem cheirut, and end up a full
fledged Jew. You have to get him to do some sort of avdus while still
in the water to prevent this. Yes he then has to find the money to pay
back the master, but he is a free and full fledged Jew.

> Anda katan may be tovelled 'al daat bet din' and then 
>treated brutally, and there is no indication that he can 
>withdraw consent when he grows up - because it's not the 
>kinyan haguf, but the chiyuv bemitzvot, that requires consent. 

Yes, but he is also taking on a chiyuv bemitzvot - the reason it can be
done al daat bet din is for the same reason that you can make a ger katan
al daat bet din - and the same halachas would clearly have to apply.
It has to be zchus for him (and query in what circumstances it could be
a proper zchus for him, when they could toyvel him l'shem cheruit and he
would be obligated in more mitzvos), you have to expect him to consent
on reaching bar mitzvah etc.

What do you think would happen if he refused to be mekabel mitzvos on
reaching bar mitzvah?

> What's more, see Shach YD 124:6, that Rashi holds
>that you do not need any sort of consent, and the Ran and 
>other rishonimmay agree with him.

How do you understand that Rashi ? The issue being discussed in YD
124:6 is whether the wine touched by such a person is assur, but not
if the person has done mila and tevila, and the question the Shach is
addressing is, if so, why are we not required to wait 12 months so they
have forgotten their avodah zara. You can understand a position that mila
and tevila might be enough to allow the wine, and bishul akum, even if
it is done against the person's will (see the Piskei Teshuva on YD 267),
(as opposed to the position of the Shulchan Aruch that such mila and
tevila achieves nothing), but it is hard to see how kabbalat mitzvot
could be achieved by this manner.

And I would be rather surprised to see that Rashi holds that an eved
cnani is not chayav in mitzvot, as this is a pretty fundamental principle.

The question I thought we were discussing was "see, Torah morality allows
slavery, just like the slavery in the deep south". The point I am making
is that the nature of Torah slavery, ie that of an eved cnani, is first
and foremost that it allows a non Jewish person to choose a sort of
half way house to becoming Jewish, but as a consequence of that half
way house, a bunch of negatives also ensue, fundamentally that one is
an eved of avadim, and not an eved HaShem. It seems to me that if you
do not view the concept of an eved cnani in that light, you are clearly
missing most of the picture.

Kind Regards
Chana

Gil Student wrote:
>>Is there any difference lehalacha between pikuach nefesh
>>for a Jew and a nonJew.

>The conclusion that I see emerging from the poskim is that a doctor MUST
>try to avoid being in a position in which he will have to heal non-Jews
>and non-religious Jews on Shabbos. But if he is in such a position then he
>must do everything possible to save his patients...
...
>There is no reason, though, for a frum doctor to try to avoid having to
>heal a religious Jew on Shabbos.

See Mishna Berura 330:8

Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
>> 1. a doctor MUST try to avoid being in a position in which he will have
>> to heal non-Jews and non-religious Jews on Shabbos.

>> 2. But if he is in such a position then he must do everything possible
>> to save his patients, regardless of who they are (regarding bureaucratic
>> issues, such as signing things, ask your LOR).

>> 3. There is no reason, though, for a frum doctor to try to avoid having
>> to heal a religious Jew on Shabbos.

> This meshes with my experience, both lehalacha and lema'aseh. Thank you;
> I had been getting the impression from other posters that #1 is not true,
> having been replaced by a combination of #2 & #3.

No one disagrees with any of the above three points. But as it applies in
practice specificly for Jewish doctors who are in an environment where
the majority of patients are not Jewish, they never-the-less must treat
every patient, Jew and non-Jew with equal care, including Chilul Shabbos
when necessary.

HM

From NZ, SBAbeles asked:
> And does anyone comment about what the geula has to do with RC or the
> Shabbos prior?

Perhaps the birchas hal'vanah is comment enough on what we look to hKbH
for. Perhaps one of us should do a Mesukim writeup of that b'racha ;-).

All the best from
 - Michael Poppers via RIM pager

I wrote on Areivim:
> Even when one will be in the air the entire zeman tefillah, R' Moshe
> Feinstein holds that davening in one's seat is preferrable than a minyan
> that blocks the way of other passangers, or incoveniences the staff by
> taking up the galley or aisle.

Someone asked me which teshuvah it is. I don't know, as I was told this pesaq
by an LOR, nor do I own a Yad Moshe (the maftei'ach). Can anyone help?

-mi

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 01:51:40PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: I don't think there's really an AZ problem with the modern USAn holiday
: of Halloween. I think the connection between it and the pre-Xian
: holiday that it evolved from is so tenuous that it's of interest only
: to historians...

(... and Xian fundamentalists, who won't celebrate it either.)

AIUI, as long as there is an AZ origin, subsequent history is irrelevent.
That was my whole point of raising Holloween as an example comparable to
"the crux of the matter", "crucial", etc... that only a linguist would
still connect to belief in an event occuring with a cross.

BTW, while discussing things that I don't understand how they're mutar,
what about the eye-and-pyramid on the back of the $1 bill? I never got
a poweiq to take this question seriously, but the I can't see how the
picture is anything less that outright AZ.

The eye is in a triangle, with intentional trinitarian symbolism. It is
all-seeing but yet unattached to the pyramid. The pyramid represents the
world, well designed and following mathematical precision. Altogether,
the symbol represents a deistic variant of Xianity.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

 From Chana Luntz:
> Do you think they followed the halacha set out in Yoreh Deah siman 267
> si'if 3 and 4 in the deep south as a matter of law? ...
...
> The point is - as clearly set out above - no-one can become an eved 
> cnani if they do not choose to be an eved cnani (obviously, because it 
> involves accepting ohel malchus shamayim, and being chayav in mitzvos 
> k'isha).

In addition to Chana's striking point above, we have R. Samson Raphael
Hirsch's z"l comment to why Kenaan was cursed with slavery (Beraishis
9-22, 29):

1. The first time the Torah mentions avdus is with respect to the
debauched behaviour of Cham and Kenaan, which they taught their
children. Recall that Kenaan taught his sons 5 things: love theft,
love immorality, etc. [Pesachim 113b].

2. "Noach *wishes* ... that Kenaan should be an eved of Shem. He sees
in that a a salvation for Cham" so that ultimately even the debased
Cham will be won over to G-d. R. Avigdor Miller z"l in his pirush to
Beraishis writes that the "sentence of servitude was the remedy". He
refers to Eliezer the slave of Avraham who became blessed instead of
accursed, Tabi the slave of Rabban Gamliel who became a Talmid Chacham
[Succah 20b] and Rebbi's maidservant who was highly regarded [Moed Katan
17a]. "Noach really *blessed* Kenaan that he be under the influence of
the more virtuous nations ...".

These remarks are most striking -- avdus is not only a benefit to the
master, but under the right circumstances, to the eved as well! Avdus
is not PC, but this is a reflection of western notions of freedom over
good character and yiras Hashem.

Indeed, in the Gemora, slaves were often of low morals. By bris milah
and servitude to a kindly Jew, even these lowly people can be enobled
and partake of the great Jewish destiny.

Again in Shemos 21:27 R. Samson Raphael Hirsch points out that

3. it is only in the case of an eved kenani (not an eved ivri) that the
Torah gives him his freedom because his tooth is knocked out. This is not
a tashlumin but a kenas "a preventative measure to induce equanimity,
mildness and even a greater degree of care and consideration in the
handling of slaves than one has to exercise with free men". See his
commentary for much more on this.

The Rambam's remark about not being over cruel to an eved seems consistent
with (3) above. Certainly a lazy or disobedient eved needs to punished
if he does not obey his master [for this is his tikkun as in (2)] but
it must be done with "equanimity and mildness", i.e. kindliness and
enoblement of the eved is part of the goal.

According to these meforshim, avdus is an institution created in reponse
to the debauched behaviour of Cham/Kenaan, and is in effect a "tikkun"
to elevate even these lowly people (as in 2), who would otherwise be
accursed. The other halachos of avdus e.g. their children are also
avadim etc. is not necessarily inconsistent with this view, for we may
now have to leave it up to the hashgacha of Hashem as to when avadim
are sufficiently enobled to be freed [in one case in the Gemora, an eved
was freed because he was needed for a mitzva]. As in other cases, it is
possible for "innocents" to *appear* to suffer. Of course, Hashem is just,
"vekol deavid Rachmana, letav avid".

In western society, debauched individuals are put in jail, and as often
pointed out, instead of enobling the person, he often learns to become
a greater criminal. While in jail, if he refuses to work, he can be
considered "non-cooperative" and punished further. Whichever system
you follow, you need to deal with this type of person. The kindly Torah
system is a model of how good character can be devloped when we follow the
halacha to the letter and in the spirit of what the Torah wants from us
[yiras Hashem].

Please see also the Meshech Chochmah at the end of Sefer Beraishis as to why
Yosef Hatzadik hated slavery. We should not confuse the kindly Torah system
with the cruel slavery practiced by the nations. See also the Emes LeYaakov
to Beraishis 9:25 as to why the Torah is against racism.

With kind regards ... Jonathan

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>See Mishna Berura 330:8

Ain hachi nami. RM Feinstein, the Minchas Yitzchak, the Tzitz Eliezer,
etc. were well aware of this Mishnah Berurah.

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

On 27 Jan 2004 at 15:30, Micha Berger wrote:
> I wrote on Areivim:
>> Even when one will be in the air the entire zeman tefillah, R' Moshe
>> Feinstein holds that davening in one's seat is preferrable than a minyan
>> that blocks the way of other passangers, or incoveniences the staff by
>> taking up the galley or aisle.

> Someone asked me which teshuvah it is. I don't know, as I was told this pesaq
> by an LOR, nor do I own a Yad Moshe (the maftei'ach). Can anyone help?

In u'Blechtecha ba'Derech 7:14, the author brings Igros Moshe OH 4:20. But
the way he characterizes it, Rav Moshe holds that only if one cannot be
m'chaven properly while standing, even while holding onto something,
should he sit. The tshuva the way your LOR told it to you (which is
how I heard it is also) is brought in footnote 64 in the name of RSZA
(Halichos Shlomo 8:4).

-- 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. 

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


[ 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         ]