Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 108

Wednesday, March 3 2004

• RE: assur to see Passion?
• Minhag EY, Minhag America
• Re: assur to see Passion?
• RE: assur to see Passion?
• big bang
• Re: Pidyon Haben
• FW: Matanot La'evyonim to be distributed in EY
• Women Reading Megillah - R' Yehuda Henkin's Response to Shlomo Aviner's Position
• Re: megillah in Jerusalem
• Re: assur to see Passion?
• RE: big bang
• Re: assur to see Passion?
• Re: assur to see Passion?
• RE: assur to see Passion?
• Re: assur to see Passion?
• RE: assur to see Passion?
• Toras Purim 5764
• Re: Minhag EY, Minhag America
• Re: Minhag EY, Minhag America
• Re: megillah in Jerusalem

Akiva Miller wrote on Areivim:
>I'm familiar with the issur against participating in Avodah Zara, and
>in giving it respect and such, but I don't remember an issur in learning
>*about* it.

That one may not study heresy, see Sefer ha-Mitzvot, prohibition 47;
Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 2:2-3. On the precise delineation of
this prohibition, see R. Nahum L. Rabinovitch, Yad Peshutah (Jerusalem:
Ma'aliyot Press 1997), ad loc.; R. Aharon Lichtenstein, "Torah and
General Culture: Confluence and Conflict" in Judaism's Encounter with
Other Cultures, Jacob J. Schacter ed. (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson 1997),
pp. 277-286; Lawrence Kaplan and David Berger, "On Freedom of Inquiry in
the Maimonides - and Today" in The Torah u-Madda Journal, vol. 2 (1990)
pp. 37-50.

FWIW, my rav thinks it is mutar to see the movie. But I disagree and am
voicing my own opinion here.

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

Do these things really exist? RSM tells me offline that RYBS, following
his father, believes that minhag America does not. He suggested that
what we really have is a "minhag hashteibl".

Anyone who lives in either of the locations I named and attended a
chasunah in the other may have noticed that the point in the chasunah
at which the glass is broken is not where they expected.

Then there are the differences in nusach, Graisms that are the norm in
Israeli Ashkenaz but not elsewhere.

But then we have the ubiquity of making an "upsherin" here in the
US. I've been to numerous Litvisher upsherins; and in this neck of the
woods the only ones resisting this trend are Yekkes (who barukh Hashem
have a strong sense of minhag avos) and cognescenti who wonder about
possible derekh Emori origins to the practice.

It would seem that a minhag America is slowly emerging. Perhaps when RYBS
said these words there was little that was universal across American (or
at least Ashkenazi American) minyanim, but I think we could document a
slowly growing number of such practices. (Many of which RSM has questioned
in the past on the grounds of not being minhag anywhere before the shift
in settlement caused by the Shoah.)

There seems to be a need to place where this phenomenon resides.

OT1H, some practices (eg when to break the glass) are so common in a
given locale that I wonder if it wouldn't be perishah min hatzibur to
do otherwise.

To what extent is the issur of perishah the same concept as minhag?

OTOH, minhag avoseinu biyadeinu is still alive and well. And our avos
come from a wide variety of locations and derakhim. As I mentioned above,
Yekkisher minhag shows better survival statistics than most. Would we
really argue that they're poreshim min hatzibur for resisting minhag EY?
I doubt RMP would agree with that one. <g> (I would give "minhag America"
as a more common example, but that would require the depressing assumption
that we'll be in the US much longer.)

I also wonder how minhagim will emerge once we're redivided by nachalah...

 -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

Gil Student wrote:
>Akiva Miller wrote on Areivim:

>>in giving it respect and such, but I don't remember an issur in learning
>>*about* it.

>That one may not study heresy, see Sefer ha-Mitzvot, prohibition 47;
>Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 2:2-3.

Concerning heresy - we have Avos (2:14)

Maharal(Nesivos HaTorah 1:14): .... Thus secular knowledge must not only
be permitted to learn but it is also obligatory! In order to reconcile
this with Shmuel's statement, we can suggest that Shmuel was not referring
to the study of astronomy but rather to astrology. Furthermore the
obligation to learn astronomy is specifically stated in Shabbos (75a)
... We must conclude therefore that a person is obligated to learn
everything which clarifies the nature of the world. The reason for this
obligation is that by understanding His products one acquires a greater
understanding of G-d. However a practical problem arises in learning
secular knowledge. It is prohibited to learn from a teacher who is
not fit as we discussed concerning R' Meir learning from his heretical
teacher. However this is not a valid objection since the prohibition
applies only to learning from a heretic in person. It is only close
personal contact that is prohibited and thus reading a book composed by
a heretic would not be present this problem. Nevertheless the question
remains whether it is permitted to study their books when they contain
attacks against the Torah concerning such thing as the Creation of the
world, G-d's knowledge, survival of the soul after death and whether
the World to Come exists. Perhaps they should be prohibited because they
might be a harmful influence?... However Avos (2:14) says that one must
know how to respond to heretical views and if one has not been exposed
to heresy how would it be possible to respond to these views? Obviously
it is necesssary to be aware of the views of heretics. However this
is obviously permitted only if the intent is to learn their views in
order to be able to refute them. If he has this motivation then it is
permitted to read their books and there is no need to avoid them out
of the concern of being influenced. However to learn their books and
quote their views in order to explain Torah when these heretics have no
portion in the Torah - the name of the wicked is to be obliterated... We
don't find in the Talmud someone cited who has no portion in Torah.
Recently these types of heretical works have circulated and they have
negatively influenced people even concerning the foundations of faith...
However if the discussion found in these works supports and reinforces the
words of our sages then it appropriate to accept. However if it against
our sages even in the slightest, G-d forbid that it be accepted at all.

Concerning learning about avoda zara you might want to look at Igros
Moshe YD 2:53 page 71

Daniel Eidensohn

> That one may not study heresy, see Sefer ha-Mitzvot, prohibition 47;
> Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 2:2-3. On the precise delineation of

Would that apply, say, to Neo-Darwinian theory? (Dawkins, for example?)

Or does it only apply to "spiritual" Heresy? And how does one deliniate
between the two?

Akiva

> At first glance, the "big bang" theory would seem to indicate that
> the  universe is contingent, having started at some singularity at 
> which all the laws of nature break down. The "best explanation" and in
> fact  the only explanation (if one exists) for this state of affairs 
> is  that  there must exist some kind of transcendent, i.e. a 
> necessary, Being  who  is the source of all this contingency.

See most recent issue of Discover magazine which has a discussion of how
string theory explains the "big bang" without requiring G-d (my words
not theirs). Furthermore according to this there will be future big bangs.

The major problem with string theory is that it can not be tested. Hence,
whether one believes in this explanation or in some external Being,
force, G-d is a matter of belief. Neither side can prove or disprove
the other. Similarly for other suggestions like infinite parallel
universes etc.

-- 
Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 3/2/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

<Anyone know why pidyon haben is the exception to the rule of zerizim
makdimim?>

A possible reason is to be certain that 29 days, 12 hours and 793 chalakim
have passed from birth. If a boy is, e.g., born at 8:00 P.M. on a summer
day, a 7:00 A.M. pidyon on the thirty-first day would be almost two
hours before a full lunar month after birth.

EMT

> it always bothered me......how one can be yoiotzeh matanot La'avyonim
> when giving in EY and he lives here in the states...there is a 7 hour
> difference...and if the money gets distributed when it's still night
> time here..is one yoitzeh?...it is even more questionable if you live
> on the west coast where the time difference between here and EY is 10
> hours.. AND even more so...if you give to an organization that distributes
> in Yerushalayim..where it gets distributed on Purim Mikufim.....that is
> way past our zman chiyuv...

Matanos L'evyonim must be given on the day that we celebrate Purim,
so one should be careful not to rely solely on money sent to Israel
and distributed on (our) Shushan Purim. Instead, one should make sure
that some of this money is distributed on "his" Purim day (not night)
- during his time zone - to fulfill the chiyuv of matanos l'evyonim.

(I personally deliver matanos l'evyonim on Purim day in Baltimore; if
anyone wants to make sure that his/her matanos l'evyonim is distributed
on Purim day (EST), I will be happy to accept $$$.)

And, as someone already indicated, one is not yotzei his chiyuv of
matanos l'evyonim by giving to yeshivas and similar institutions (RSZA
in Halichos Shlomo). RSZA defines an "evyon" as one who does not have
enough money for basic necessities.

KT Aryeh

I thank Jon Baker for bringing this to my attention. The
following is R' Yehuda Herzl Henkin's response to
R' Shlomo Aviner's column on women's megillah readings
(<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n100.shtml#22>). The (poor)
translation is mine and I apologize for it.

http://www.hazofe.co.il/web/katava6.asp?Modul=24&id=21424&Word=&gilayon=1903&mador=

In Pirkei Avot it says, "Do not believe in yourself until the day
of your death" (2:4), and in regard to a Torah dispute this could be
explained: "Do not think that what you say is correct simply because you
say it." That you have a view does not prove the correctness of that
view. They also said (ibid. 4:5): "Do not say, 'Accept my view.'" In
other words: "Do not say that one should accept it simply because it is
your view. Rather, you must bring a proof." This is all said in regard
to two difficult positions recently taken by R' Shlomo Aviner shlit"a.

The first was publicized in an number of essays in Mekhon Meir's weekly
"Be-Ahavah u-ve-Emunah" and was also discussed in Ha-Tzofeh. In them
R' Shlomo Aviner disqualified a number of additions and innovations to
the wedding ceremony, apparently including some that are pure and even
necessary. Thus, for example, a "tour guide" to explain to guests what is
happening in the ceremony or "Words of Torah under the Huppah." What can
be wrong with words of Torah? R' Aviner's answer: "The time of Huppah is
separate, and the time of Torah is separate." Where did he find such
rules? These are answers that are not answers. In common language:
Why? Because.

In my view, R' Aviner ignores an important concern: Adding significance
to the wedding ceremony in order to counterbalance a bit between it
and the subsequent meal and dancing. So that the Huppah will not be
"bang and we are done." So that the bride and groom will have something
special of their own in the ceremony, to commemorate their love. My
intention is not to deal with the substance of these issues right now,
only to point out the arbitrariness in R' Shlomo Aviner's words, views
that he presented as basic and self-explanatory and requiring obedience.

***

The second position was presented in an important essay in this section
("From Whom to Hear Megillah?", 28 Shevat) in which R' Aviner revoked
from women the right to read Megilah to other women.

In a simpler era, R' Shlomo Aviner would introduce his essays with
a warning such as "There is no halakhic ruling here. There is no
wisdom here. This is only the work of collecting sources" (from the
essay "The Modesty of the Daughter of Israel's Clothing"). This trait
was appropriate. In contrast, here, rather than collecting trustworthy
sources and show the various angles of the topic - for the lenient have
claims no less than the strict - R' Aviner paints a simple picture,
as if there is only one side.

To the paragraphs of his responsum: In paragraph 1, R' Shlomo Aviner
mentions the question of which blessing a woman should recite: whether
"al mikra megillah" or "lishmo'a (mikra) megillah". However, this question
also arises when a man reads for women. The man already fulfilled his
obligation with the first reading in the synagogue, and therefore when
he comes to read a second time for women, which blessing should he
recite? Even more so, according to the preference of many posekim that
a woman should recite the blessing for other women and then a man should
read the megillah for them. If we prohibit because of a doubt regarding
the blessing, we would have to end all of the second readings for
women. However, in practice, there is no problem of a blessing in vain,
and [women] fulfill [their obligation] with either "al mikra megillah"
or "lishmo'a megillah" because, in my view, neither of these statements
are God-forbid false (it seems that "al mikra megillah" is preferable).

In paragraph 2, he wrote difficult things that have no defense. R' Aviner
cited the "Korban Netanel" on the Rosh in Sukkah (38a) who explained
Tosafot there as prohibiting a woman from reading the megillah for many
other women and permitting a woman to read only for a few women. [R'
Aviner] does not mention even a single word that many disagreed with
the "Korban Netanel" and demonstrated that the intent of Tosafot was
that women should not read in order to fulfill men in their obligation.
However, there is no prohibition from Tosafot prohibiting [a woman from
reading megillah] to fulfill other women. This is also evident from
Tosafot Ha-Rosh in Sukkah, ad loc., a book that had not been published in
his life so the "Korban Netanel" could not have known what was explained
in it (and I added that this can also be proven from the Sefer Agudah,
ad loc., [a book] that was also not in the hands of most Aharonim even
if it was published once). Tosafot Ha-Rosh on Sukkah was first published
approximately 20 years after the publication of the "Mishnah Berurah".

In paragraph 3, [R' Aviner] cited the Magen Avraham (689:6) who explained
the Midrash Ha-Ne'elam on Ruth that a woman may not read [megillah]
even for herself, however he does not mention that according to the
version of the Gra we can seriously question whether this was the intent
of the Midrash Ha-Ne'elam. Paragraphs 4-6 do not directly impact this
law. However, R' Shlomo Aviner equates different things: Between changes
in the form of prayer such as separate "Women's Prayers" [i.e. Women's
Tefillah Groups] (of which the "Iggerot Moshe" that he cited discusses),
things that the Sages never saw, and between the reading of the megillah
for women by women, that has an explicit place in Halakhah and does not
constitute a change in the form of prayer any more than a second reading
for women by men.

And, finally, that Beruriah, Yalta and others "did not read the megillah
for themselves." From where does Rav Aviner know what they did?

Rabbi Yehuda Henkin

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

 From: Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il>
> If people from outside of Jerusalem go to a hotel for Parshat Zachor
> ......<snip>
> Can someone from Jerusalem read the megillah for them since he is not
> a mechuyav?

the first mishna in megillah....people from outlying villages read on
11,12, or 13. Rashi on the mishna in d"h 'eloh shehaqforim'....his EXACT
loshon....v'haqforim einon b'quin liqrois utzrichin sheyikroenoh lohem
echod m'bnei ho'ir.....

we could ask your question in this case too...was the baal kriyeh yoitzeh
with is reading?

Simcha G

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>Concerning heresy - we have Avos (2:14)
>Maharal(Nesivos HaTorah 1:14): ...It is only close personal contact
>that is prohibited and thus reading a book composed by a heretic would
>not be present this problem...

The Maharal's shitah is certainly an interesting one but I do not believe
that it has been generally accepted by poskim. But I found something
else in there that I did not remember and that greatly assists me in a
sugyah I am researching. Thank you for that.

See the Rashbatz's Magen Avos on that Mishnah in which he explicitly
writes that his heter in studying Christianity was leida ma le-hashiv
es ha-epikorus.

Akiva Atwood wrote:
>Would that apply, say, to Neo-Darwinian theory? (Dawkins,
>for example?)

>Or does it only apply to "spiritual" Heresy? And how does
>one deliniate between the two?

Lichora, it would apply to such a theory IF it is epikorsus. You need
a knowledgeable posek to determine whether it is.

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

[R' Eli Turkel:]
> See most recent issue of Discover magazine which has a discussion of how
> string theory explains the "big bang" without requiring G-d (my words
> not theirs). Furthermore according to this there will be future big bangs.

> The major problem with string theory is that it can not be tested. Hence,
> whether one believes in this explanation or in some external Being,
> force, G-d is a matter of belief. Neither side can prove or disprove
> the other. Similarly for other suggestions like infinite parallel
> universes etc.

The multiverse (parallel universes) is an interesting concept that
may ultimately prove to have much merit, but probably in a different
form than the current proposals. It is currently a preferred theory
of atheists because it provides the possibility of explaining all the
"fine tuning" of this universe by inflating the available probabilistic
resources (by an unlimited amount). This is why the multiverse theory is
pushed by some way beyond its current experimental limits, even though
there is a plausible alternative.

What remains interesting is the need by scientists to explain this
universe by an appeal to some factor outside of it.

There are, however, a number of problems with the multiverse theory,
apart from experimental verification. In an unlimited multiverse there are
possible worlds in which Shakespeare was an imbecile who just by chance
happened to string together a long sequence of apt phrases. Unlimited
probabibilistic resources ensure that we will never know if our world
is the imbecilic world or not. We also then have no rational basis
for preferring one explanation (Shakespeare was a genius) over the
other (Shakespeare was an imbecile). It might just be more plausible
to explain the fine tuning by an appeal to a Designer, as we know
empirically that intelligence can produce plan and purpose. In such a
universe, we need not accept the bizarre possibility that Shakespeare
(or Einstein etc.) were imbeciles.

But all this is irrelevant to the updated Cosmological argument, and
the Cosmological argument found in the Rishonim and the Midrash. To
say that "string theory explains the "big bang" without requiring G-d"
is to make the same mistake as Hawking all over again as explained in
a previous posting (the atheistic philosopher Quentin Smith called
Hawkings presentation "probably the worst atheistic argument in the
history of western thought".) Scientists may make these claims without
understanding the underlying issues.

The point is that this universe (whether a muitiverse or constructed
from strings) appears to be contingent. The best explanation (and the
only explanation) for a contingent string-theory universe (if strings
theory is true) is that a transcendant necessary Being is its cause.

Kol Tuv ... Jonathan

Gil Student wrote:
>The Maharal's shitah is certainly an interesting one but I do not
>believe that it has been generally accepted by poskim. ...

Rashbatz(Magen Avos 2:19): ...the term apikorus is a Greek word referring
to some who denies that G-d exists and is applied by Chazal to anyone who
denies our faith, is an atheist or claims that there are two gods. They
are also sometimes referred to as minim (sectarians)....The term
apikorus is also applied to someone who insults talmidei chachomim....The
chachomim have commanded that we diligently learn Torah in order that
we should be able to refute their claims. In the time of the gemora
these apikorsim would antagonize the rabbis with their claims from the
Bible. Chazal commanded that we be diligent in learning Torah in order
to be able to refute the claims of the apikorsim. In addition it was
necessary to decree a special beracha against heretics in the Amida -
Berchas HaMinim. Furthermore we have been commanded to know how to
answer heretics. Therefore we have assumed a leniency to learn their
wisdom so that we can demonstrate to them on their own terms that they
have no refutation of Torah. This study of their wisdom is not related
to the warning that whoever reads the 'external books' has lost his Olam
HaBah. That prohibition only refers to their books which are lacking in
wisdom and are just a waste of time. Similarly the prohibition against
learning Greek wisdom does not refer to intellectual endeavors but
refers to a specific skill learned in those times of speaking in hints.
Even that would be technically permitted except for a specific historical
occurrence that led to a decree against it. ...Therefore those books that
are based upon logical proofs were not included in the prohibition.
Someone who studies them can accept that which is true and should
endeavor to refute that which is against the Torah. This is what we
find with Rabbi Meir who learned from Elisha ben Abuya who had become
a heretic. The gemora says it was comparable to a pomegranate. He ate
the valid content and threw away the peel..."

Rambam(Avos 2:14): You should know what to answer the apikorus: It is
necessary to learn things to be able to refute the apikorus if they ask
you questions. It is important to note that this only applies to a non
Jewish heretic but one should not argue with a Jewish heretic since
it only makes them worse and they intensify their abusive comments.
Therefore one should not speak to them at all since it serves no
constructive purpose and you can't help them at all... Furthermore even
though the ability to respond to the heretics requires that one learn
the non Jewish religions, one should take care not to accept any aspect
of their religion. You should constantly be aware that G-d is fully
cognizant of what is in your heart and therefore one always be directed
at having the proper faith.

Sdei Chemed(3:402): brings the view that one can learn from seforim
written by a heretic but not directly from the heretic - similar to
the Maharal.

While both the Chazon Ish(2:46) and Igros Moshe(Y.D. 2:105) prohibit the
use of text books written by heretics - it seems that this is specifically
concerning children.

Where do you find that the requirement of knowing how to reply to heretics
has not been accepted by most poskim?

Daniel Eidensohn

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>Where do you find that the requirement of knowing how to 
>reply to heretics has not been accepted by most poskim?

Of course I accept that heter! But it does not apply to everyone.

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

> Lichora, it would apply to such a theory IF it is epikorsus. You need
> a knowledgeable posek to determine whether it is.

Wouldn't this depend in part on how you strictly you define epikorsus?

If you define it as someone who knew the Emet and then went "off the
derech" (which seems to be thwe generally used definition) then how
could any non-Jew be one?

Akiva
=============
"Remember; no matter where you go, there you are"
-Buckaroo Banzai

On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 09:08:03PM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
:> Lichora, it would apply to such a theory IF it is epikorsus. You need
:> a knowledgeable posek to determine whether it is.

: Wouldn't this depend in part on how you strictly you define epikorsus?

: If you define it as someone who knew the Emet and then went "off the
: derech" (which seems to be thwe generally used definition) then how
: could any non-Jew be one?

You switch from discussing apiqursus to discussing who is an
apiqoreis. While it's logical to take the history of a mis-believer
into account when assessing his own status, how can one do so
when assessing the status of the belief itself?

-mi

> You switch from discussing apiqursus to discussing who is an
> apiqoreis. While it's logical to take the history of a mis-believer
> into account when assessing his own status, how can one do so
> when assessing the status of the belief itself?

In discussions I've had about New Age Cults/beliefs with Poskim
here, some of the New age "beliefs" are classified as "shtussim"
(i.e. ridiculous). My question is: would it make a difference if the
persons professing those beliefs are/were frum or not.

(These beliefs are obviously on the boundary between "acceptable" and
"unacceptable" beliefs)

Akiva

Bereishis 3:18

V'KOTZ V'DARDAR TATZMIACH LACH V'ACHALTA ES EISEV HASADEH

V'KOTZ - this is Egypt, concerning which it says VAYAKUTZU MIPNEI
    BNEI YISROEL
V'DARDAR - this is Amalek, concerning which it says MILCHAMA LA'HASHEM
    B'AMALEK ME'DOR DOR.
EISEVE HASADEH - these are all other opressors, concerng which it says
    BI'FROACH RESHOIM KEMO EISEV

What is the eitzah?

Bereishis 3:19

B'ZEI'AS APECHA TOCHAL LECHEM AD SHUVCHA EL HO'ADAMAH

B'ZEI'AS APECHA TOCHAL LECHEM - this is Torah, which must be learned
b'eima b'yirah b'reses u'B'ZEIAH; and specifically Torah shelomadti b'AF
omdo li; and Lechu lachmu b'LACHMI.

AD SHUVCHA EL HO'ADAMAH - until you return to Eretz Yisroel.

The yesod of Amalek is me'dor dor. More to come IY"H.

YGB

On 1 Mar 2004 at 11:45, Micha Berger wrote:
> Do these things really exist? RSM tells me offline that RYBS,
> following his father, believes that minhag America does not. He
> suggested that what we really have is a "minhag hashteibl".

Rav Moshe and Rav Shlomo Zalman also held that there is no such thing 
as Minhag EY (and in Rav Moshe's case Minhag America) IIRC. 

> But then we have the ubiquity of making an "upsherin" here in the US.

They are equally as widespread here. 

-- Carl

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 02:46:13PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
:> Do these things really exist? RSM tells me offline that RYBS,
:> following his father, believes that minhag America does not. He
:> suggested that what we really have is a "minhag hashteibl".

: Rav Moshe and Rav Shlomo Zalman also held that there is no such thing 
: as Minhag EY (and in Rav Moshe's case Minhag America) IIRC. 

But my thesis was the possibility that as time goes on since the
relocation from old places of settlement to the current ones, minhagei
hamaqom would slowly emerge.

In Israel, some common practices have. In the US, things are newer,
but even here there are one or two that people do regardless of where
their ancestors lived in "the old country".

The actual question was at what point do such practices get the status
of minhag makaqom?

Which means that while it could be true that RMF, RSZA, RYBS, etc...
lived in countries that lack a true minhag hamqom, our children,
grandchildren, and their poseqim may very well will.

And where are we on the scale of transition?

Is the measure one of being percieved as a poreish min hatzibbur, or is
the standard something else?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905      

On 1 Mar 2004 at 14:47, Eli Turkel wrote:
> If people from outside of Jerusalem go to a hotel for Parshat Zachor
> then it would seem that they all have to hear the megillah in a minyan
> in the hotel on motzei shabbat (assuming they return home later that
> night). Can someone from Jerusalem read the megillah for them since he
> is not a mechuyav?

Based on my son's experience reading for Bnei Brak'ers in Yerushalayim on
Leil Purim d'Mukafim (they insisted that he NOT hear Megilla elsewhere
first) I think the CI would say no. OTOH, if the hotel is outside
Yerushalayim, the CI would be m'chayeiv the Yerushalmi to hear the
Megillah since he holds that the night is kovea (the MB holds that the
day is kovea) so the Yerushalmi would be m'chuyav.

-- Carl

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


[ 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         ]