Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 001

Sunday, April 17 2005

• Re: Eruvin
• Re: Bracha on T'vila
• mechaber vs Ramah in CM
• RE: sheidim [was: fallibility or non fallibility of chazal]
• Re: History of the minhagim of the Omer
• Re: Eruvin
• Re: non-jew at seder
• Re: 2 Pesach Halocho Sheets
• Re: 2 Pesach Halocho Sheets
• Re: 2 Pesach Halocho Sheets
• Re: Signing a Kesubah Before Dating It.
• Re: May a nonJew attend a seder
• Re: Eruvin
• Re: 2 Pesach Halocho Sheets
• How wicked can one's child be?
• Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 02:15:55 -0400

I haven't seen Avodah for months, so my comments will reflect this,
and I will try to ask only simple questions.

On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 07:57:05PM -0700, shmuel pultman wrote:
>: If you are referring to Rav Moshe zt"l's shita, the fact that the roads
>: that run through the KGH neighborhood are small ones has no bearing on
>: the matter that in a city Rav Moshe reckons the shishim ribuy (3,000,000
>: people) over a twelve mil by twelve mil area and not over a single
>: road...

I always understood shishim ribo (not ribuy) to mean 60 x 10,000 = 
600,000.  What am I missing?

~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:laser@ieee.org  

I wrote:
>>When do you anticipate that a post menopausal woman would do tevila? The
>>only case I can think of is the one brought by RTK ie if she chooses to
>>go erev yom kippur, and I don't believe she makes a brocha in that case.

RMB wrote:
>Others mentioned the first tevilah after menapause, which for ba'alos
>teshuvah will come well after knowing their state.

>Second, doesn't a woman who sees dam have to practice hilkhos niddah
>even if it would take a neis like Sarah's for the dam to be the normal
>biology for niddah?

Okay, Okay, but you are slightly missing the point here. Clearly in
both of these cases the woman would make a bracha - but the only hava
mina that she wouldn't would be based on interpreting the Mechaber's pru
u'rvu as davka, rather than including onah etc, whereas I don't believe
it is generally understood that way (although I have, not surprisingly,
heard that some people put a greater emphasis on going to mikvah on time
if the mitzvah of pru u'rvu has not yet been performed with the requisite
number of children). If you want to be so medakdek, I could argue that
I said "when do you anticipate a post menopausal woman doing tevila?" -
we do not anticipate nissim (and the definition of post menopausal is
that the menses have stopped, not that she is not fertile). And while
maybe we do on one level anticipate that everybody will ultimately
due teshuva, even post menopausal women, on another arguably we do not
anticipate that anybody is choteh, and this case is in most situations
a case where there is previous chet (not always, a woman who marries
after menopause, but whose last marriage, if there was one, ended before
menopause, will go to mikvah prior to her wedding - but if you are going
to be medakdek in understanding pru u'rvu in the way described, you may
have problem with the sheva brochas as well, see the discussions there
regarding them being in fact brochas on pru u'rvu). On the other hand,
if you are suggesting that a baalas teshuva should go to mikvah after
menopause, because she was married before and should have gone before
and failed to do so, even though there is now no marriage, then I would
also not think she should make a bracha.

> Much mach later in the post, RtCL writes:
>>So clearly according to these Rishonim [the Rambam and the Chinuch], one has
>>to want to be m'taher at the very least, and, at least by implication, that
>>wanting would seem to be linked to being able to do a mitzvah action
>>subsequent to the tevila.

>I don't see that implication. No more than shechitas chulin requires a
>desire to eat meat, with no implication that there must be some mitzvah
>associated with eating that meat. Look at the examples the Rambam brings
>in asei 109 -- these are all mitzvos asei that serve as matiros. The
>Chinuch phrases it as "if they want to be metaheir", again with no
>implication (IMHO) of "for a mitzvah".

The implication comes from the next phrase in each case, ie "in order to
enter the mikdash" etc - ie the follow on line relates in all cases to
a mitzvah. Neither the Rambam nor the Chinuch needed those extra words -
why could they not have simiply said "if they want to be m'taher"
without more (that, as I understood it was your original argument,
that a penuya might want to be in a state of tehora, rather than tumah,
especially if she was Zohar influenced). But even if you lower it from
not doing some mitzvah, to of mitzvos that serves as matiros - it is not
that you want the state of achieving the mitzvah, it is that you want to
be able to *do* something with it (eg eat the meat). Similarly it is not
that one has to want to be m'taher, but one has to want to do something
with that tahor state. Therefore, at the very least, your penuya has to
want to do something with the tahor state that she could not do without
it, ie it must be matir something. But the only thing that it is likely
to be matir bizman hazeh, is precisely the thing you were denying that
she might be going to the mikvah to enable her to do. - There is one
case b'zman hazeh that somebody pointed out to me. If you hold that it
is permissible to ascend onto har habayit, and that tevila is necessary
to do this, then you would make a bracha in doing so. Of course if you
hold that it is assur to go up bizman hazeh, then you would presumably
hold that it is in the same category vis a vis the brocha as that of a
penuya who makes a brocha over a tevila because she plans to be involved
in pre-marital relations.

So, to summarise - can we conclude that there is no brocha in any case
in which one is going to the mikvah merely in order to be m'taher oneself?

If we agree on that, then the further questions seems to be - if one only
makes a brocha over tevila where the intention is to be matir something
that is otherwise assur, is one still permitted to make a brocha if the
thing that is being mattired is still an issur, even if the act limits the
extent of the issur (in our case, possibly from a d'orisa to a d'rabbanan,
although even that would need to be discussed, but at the very least from
a kares to a lav). Possibly an analogous example would be shechita where
the animal is known to be treif and the shechita is not being done because
of the lower level of tumah of a g'shochten animal ie bizman hazeh, but
because the intention is to eat the treif animal. Would one still make a
brocha on an animal known to be treif shechted today? My gut reaction,
is that to say "asher kidishanu b'mitzvotav vitzivanu" in such a case
would amount to a sheker and it should not be said (it brings to mind
the famous maklokus between the Rambam and the Ramban on whether to
say a brocha on eating non kosher food. But there at least there is no
"asher kidishanu" there is just an acknowledgement that Hashem created
the food, so I would have thought that even if you hold that a brocha
should be said there, you would agree that it is not to be said here).

And then even if the answer to the above question would be yes, the
further question is, does the fact that the Rambam/Chinuch only give
examples that the thing being enabled by way of tevila is a mitzvah mean
that tevila is different in this regard? One could see reasons for saying
yes, because of the way the whole nature of tevila is linked to mitzvah,
in a way that can't necessarily be said for shechita for example.

Regards
Chana

> <What Rav Silberstein probably meant is, if someone wants to be motzee
> mamon from an ashkenazi doctor on the semach of a Rema or vice versa, in
> such an instance the doctor may argue "kim lee", I accept the position of
> the mechaber therefore you can't coerce me to accept the Rema and pay you.

> But in general, if the doctor would ask a rav how he should conduct
> his businness in the first place, why wouldn't the answer would be to
> an ashkenazi according to the Rema, and to a sefardi according to the
> Mechaber.

The case he was discussing was whether a doctor should be removed from his
position after one mistake or only after 3 mistakes. He claimed that it
was a machloket Mechaber and Ramah. This is not a direct conflict between
a sefardi and ashkenazi over money. In any event he stated that it would
be treated like any other machloket haposkim and one would not make a
differentiation between ashkenazi and sefardi doctors (or hospitals?) .

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

> My father zt'l once quoted someone--who? I don't remember, someone
> famous--as saying that when the Rambam said there are no sheidim,
> his gadlus was such that sheidim ceased to exist. When the Ramban said
> that sheidim do exist, they came back into existence. Anyone know the
> source?

I once heard the first part of that said in the name of the Chasam Sofer.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:15:01PM -0400, Russell Levy wrote:
: I recently did research for a university essay on the minhagim during
: the sefirah. I had gone through many of the rishonim and acharonim on
: the topic, and noticed that the Magen Avraham (whose parents, according
: to EJ, were killed in tach v'tat when he was 13) is the first (that I
: found) to place restrictions on music and dancing....

See the AhS, OCh 493:1-3.

He describes the period as one that was turned into yemei hadin, saying
their were many such events but in particular speaking of R' Aqiva's
Talmidim and the crusades.

The AhS seems to say in se'if 2 that the ban on getting married (assuming
there were tanaim already, so there is no chance of missing out on the
shidduch) is old, the ban on music is from the geonim, and in se'if 3
the ban on haircutting is relatively more recent and local.

I therefore surmised, since the AhS gives two causes -- one involve all
of Kelal Yisrael, the other Ashkenazic, and lists minagim in two parts
-- one involving all of KY and the other more narrow in scope, that he
was pairing them off.

It also would explain the difficulty in choosing dates for
observance. Pashut peshat in the gemara is that the talmidim died
in the first part of the omer. But the Crusades reached Ashkenaz in
mid-to-late Iyyar.

On my own, I would suggest a fourth possibility, the first three being
Tach veTat and those I just listed. It's the only time that we had
a special avodah that is now r"l taken from us, but no special chiyuv of
simchah. The qorban omer is therefore one special thing where mourning
its loss would be permissable.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:10:00 -0400 R' Micha Berger wrote:
> 1- Define "city". Since Queens and Brooklyn run into each other,
> I don't know why you're assuming they're separate.

Rav Moshe zt"l was the first posek who laid out the halachic guidelines
applying to a city, basing it on another one of his chiddushim in
eruvin that the whole twelve mil by twelve mil of the diglei hamidbar,
including machneh yisroel, was a reshus harabbim. However, how do the
others who define the criterion of shishim ribuy as being dependent on
a city establish the halachic boundaries of a city? Do municipalities
define the parameters? Or, as you ask, if municipalities run into each
other shouldn't they be thought of as one city? (See Minchas Shlomo,
2:57.) Therefore, it is just simpler to understand, as most poskim do,
that the Shulchan Aruch's criterion of shishim ribuy is dependent on a
street and not a city.

According to Rav Moshe, the only other restriction on the size of a
city is a geographical boundary e.g. rivers which would even isolate an
area smaller then the twelve mil by twelve mil section (see the end of
Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:88). As you pointed out, there are no geographical
barriers between Brooklyn and Queens. However, each borough is larger
then twelve mil by twelve mil and each borough has a population of
less than 3,000,000. Additionally, even if we reckoned the twelve mil
by twelve mil area from where one is standing, we still would not meet
the criterion of shishim ribuy as established by Rav Moshe.

[Email #2. -mi]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:03:50 R' Steve Brizel wrote:
> IIRC, isn't Ocean Parkway a matter of some controversy as to whether it
> carries shishim ribuy?WADR, even after numerous readings of RMF's teshuvah
> re the KGH eruv, it is evident that RMF based his heter for the same on
> the size of the neighborhood and the fact that no major highways of any
> kind ran thru the eruv, as opposed to merely serving as its boundaries.

There is no doubt (by those who made an effort to find out from the DOT)
that Ocean Parkway has nowhere near 600,000 people traversing it daily. I
understand why it may seem like RMF based his heter for the KGH eruv on
the size of the neighborhood, nevertheless, it would have to be consistent
with RMF other chiddushim in eruvin which, as I pointed out, it's not.

I would add that from Rav Moshe's teshuvas -- including the KGH teshuva
O.C. 4:86, and the Boro Park and Flatbush teshuvos 5:28:5 and Addendum
to 4:89 -- we do see that if the tzuras hapesach encircles a population
of less than shishim ribuy, he would allow such an eruv. However, Queens
is not unique in this matter since all the community eruvin in Brooklyn
encompass a population of much less than shishim ribuy.

Shmuel Pultman

Any authority out there on whether a non-jew seeking to convert (but not yet
there) is permitted at a seder?

Gary S. Litke

From: Zev Sero
> The problem is that ratepayers pay an annual rental fee
> for the bins.

That is not a rental on the bin, it's a service charge for picking up
the rubbish every week. Glen Eira charges a fee for each bin, but it is
explicitly called "service charge", not "bin rental". ... In any case,
I don't think this gives the resident a kinyan over the bin itself. For
instance, if it is lost, I believe both councils will replace it at
no extra charge, thus showing that it's not the bin you're paying for,
it's the service.

Efshar. OTOH maybe part of the 'service charge' covers 'insurance'
in case the bin is lost or destroyed?

SBA 

From: "Zev Sero" <zev@sero.name>
> I don't see what difference it makes how the council calculated the
> service fees it charges. .....  The point is
> that they are charging for the service, and with the service they
> provide you with *their* bin, which remains their property.  The
> fee that you pay doesn't give you any kinyan in the bin.  So when
> it is on the street, anything that is put in it does not become
> yours, it becomes the city's.

But [by council by-laws] is everyone allowed to place their garbage
into any bin that is out on the street?

If not, would you still stay it is hefker?

SBA

SBA wrote:
>> replace it at no extra charge, thus showing that it's not the bin you're
>> paying for, it's the service.

> Efshar. OTOH maybe part of the 'service charge'  covers 'insurance'
> in case the bin is lost or destroyed?

I don't see what difference it makes how the council calculated the
service fees it charges.  How they arrived at the precise fee, and
what expenses it's intended to cover, is irrelevant.  The point is
that they are charging for the service, and with the service they
provide you with *their* bin, which remains their property.  The
fee that you pay doesn't give you any kinyan in the bin.  So when
it is on the street, anything that is put in it does not become
yours, it becomes the city's.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

HM wrote:
> When this was pointed out to the Mesader, he seemed oblivious to the
> Halacha and that kind of makes me wonder how many Rabbanim actually know
> pertinent Halacha and create innovations that are problematic and cause
> major problems. The Rav involved was a recognized Rabbi of a Kehhila,
> yet ignorant of basic Halacha, it seems to me. I wonder how many Pasul
> Kesubos there are out there?

I heard this from a close source. A talmid called Rav Elya Simcha
Schustal, Shlita, Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva Bais Binyomin, Stamford CT, to
request that the RY be Mesader Kiddushin. The RY regretfully declined.
A grandson who was there asked the zaide why he had refused. The RY
answered that any time he is MK he reviews all the relevant halachos
first. Currently he does not have the time to do so, therefore he can
not agree.

Note that the RY has been MK a vast number of times, but still will not
do so without sufficient review.

In Avodah V14 #114 R' Gershon Dubin wrote:
>May a nonJew attend a seder?  If not why not?

The Taz OC end of 167 quotes a Rekanti that Matzos Mitzva shouldn't be
served to a goy.

It creates as well a situation with the wine. With a kos at every place
he'll surely have a problem moving around. And those who are machmir a
goy shouldn't see the wine (see Darkei Tshuvei YD 123 2), for them it's
out of the question - except if they use mevushal, which according to
the KSA is second choice for the seder.

[R Zvi Lampel:]
>Before anyone gets confused, may I interject that this issue is not to
>be confused with the issur of a non-Jew to eat the korbon Pesach (and
>participate in /that/ Pesach ceremony).

The Shelah (m. Pesachim Drush 5) after explaining the reason an orel is
prohibited from eating the korbon pesach, he concludes "and I saw in a
sefer (possibly the above Rekanti), that a goy shouldn't be given Matzoh
since it's in place of the korbon pesach". The Shelah doesn't mention
specifically matzos mitzva but it's mistaber that that's what he meant.

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:18:30 R' Saul Mashbaum wrote:
> In his commentary to OH 345, the Aruch HaShulchan deals explicitly
> with the question of how we can rely on contemporary eiruvin, which are
> based on the opinions of a minority of rishonim, against the opinion
> of most rishonim, who hold shishim ribo is not a requirement for reshut
> harabim. He has a chiddush in the definition of reshut harabbim, which
> he offers because it is, as he says, a mitzva to justify the widespread
> practice of am Yisroel.

It is this Aruch HaShulchan that Rav Moshe zt"l is referring to when he
said that it is obvious that the Aruch HaShulchan would not agree with
his chiddush and therefore Rav Moshe declined to issue a p'sak to the
Rabbanim of Flatbush (Igros Moshe, O.C. 4:87 see ibid., 1:39 where Rav
Moshe states kvar horeh zaken on the Aruch HaShulchan). It is interesting
to note that the Aruch HaShulchan (Choshen Mishpat 162:1) maintains
that shishim ribuy is an accepted fundament to the extent that if one
does not want to join his neighbors in their eruv chatzeiros because he
wants to be stringent and not rely on the criterion of shishim ribuy,
his neighbors can compel him to join them.

The tally of Rishonim is the famous machlokes between the Bais Ephraim
(O.C. 26) and the Mishkenos Yaakov (O.C. 120-122) however the Bais Av
(2:5:2) brings proof that the majority of Rishonim accept shishim
ribuy as a fundament in reshus harabbim (see also Shemiras Shabbos
K'Hilchasa, perek 17, note 21 and Toldos Shmuel, 3:86:8). Nevertheless,
nearly all of the Achronim consider the criterion of shishim ribuy an
accepted fundament in reshus harabbim (Taz, 345:6, and Magen Avraham,
345:7). Even Rav Moshe zt"l considered the criterion of shishim ribuy
an accepted fundament in reshus harabbim (Igros Moshe, O.C. 3:94, 5:19,
5:24:10); however, he had chiddushim in how to apply it.

It should be noted that had the Mishnah Berurah (345:23) seen the Bais
Ephraim in conjunction with the Mishkenos Yaakov, there is a possibility
he would have paskened like the Bais Ephraim that shishim ribuy is an
accepted fundament in reshus harabbim, and he would have agreed that even
a Baal Nefesh could be lenient and rely on the fact that the streets are
lacking shishim ribuy. See Bi'ur Halachah (208:9, s.v. Eino M'Vorech),
where he states that he does not have the sefer Bais Ephraim (see also
Toldos Shmuel, 3:81:7, 3:86:8; Bais Av, 2:5:2; Divrei Yatziv 2:173:1,
and Even Yisroel, 8:36).

There are a few poskim who mention this chiddush of the Aruch HaShulchan;
however, the Chazon Ish's chiddush is one of the reasons why in Eretz
Yisroel eruvin are maintained (Even Yisroel, 8:36; Kinyan Torah, 4:40,
and Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlita in Shoneh Halachos, siman 363).

Shmuel Pultman

SBA wrote:
> From: "Zev Sero" <zev@sero.name>
>>>>> The problem is that ratepayers pay an annual rental fee
>>>>> for the bins.
[...]
> But [by council by-laws] is everyone allowed to place their garbage
> into any bin that is out on the street?
> If not, would you still stay it is hefker?

The bin isn't hefker, it belongs to the council. If someone puts rubbish
in your bin, I don't think you can sue them for trespass, you have to
complain to the council, who will go after them with some by-law for
improperly disposing of rubbish, just as the council will go after you
if you put household rubbish in a street bin.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

[Moderator's note: I took the liberty of changing the word "your" to
"one's" in the title of this post. My rebbe, as were most Jews of his day,
was very careful not to say "you" when speaking of something tragic. -mi]

I came across a most poignant, compassionate and insightful interpretation
of a Haggadah text.

We all know how the stereotypical "wicked" child is portrayed in the
Haggadah. He is depicted as disrespectful and asking insolent questions.
 The parents are then instructed by the author of the Haggadah: "
"hak-heh his teeth," a difficult verb usually translated as "blunt his
teeth" or give him a slap across the mouth.

Nothing could be further from the true interpretation. The Hebrew verb
hak-heh etymologically means to remove the sharpness of an iron implement
by the warmth of fire (Kohelet 10:10). The wise and prudent parent will
take away the sting from the words of a wicked child through familial
love and warmth. I would also ask the question if any parent could
conceive of his or her child as "wicked"?

I am reminded of the old adage: "You can get more with honey than
vinegar." It is incumbent upon every parent to inclusively accept all
the children. This is the Judaism that appeals to the neshama!

Richard Wolberg

On Wednesday April 13, 2005, I wrote:
> BTY, please note that in my original quote I mentioned "mainstream
> orthodox" (as opposed to modern orthodox). If you take the modern
> orthodox crowd into consideration, my ratio of billion year to young
> universe believers would obviously be significantly impacted. I do not
> take the modern-orthodox hashkafah into consideration and thus I am
> only contending with a hashkafa that I consider uncompromisingly loyal
> to the hashkafas haTorah. Personally, I believe that in some areas,
> modern-orthodox hashkafa is severely influenced by ideologies of western
> culture and thus does not warrant treatment on a site that is dedicated
> to maintaining a High Level Torah Discussion.

Almost immediately, I was taken to task via back-channel communications.
First, R' Akiva Miller remonstrated with me as follows:
> In other words, you are defining "[modern] orthodox" as NOT
> uncompromisingly loyal to the hashkafas haTorah. First of all, this
> shows that you ARE defining "shelomei emuna" cyclically, because modern
> orthodox doesn't count. Second, I think you should expect an awful lot
> of complaints about this.

I explained to R' Akiva that I was using the term Modern Orthodox (MO) to
modify Jews who did not have a Torah hashkafah and did not mean to lump
all MO Jews together. After several communications, R' Akiva graciously
accepted my elucidation and we parted company amicably.

However, the next day, I was taken to task once again by R' HM and
eventually, our beloved moderator joined the fray bi'chvodo uvi'azmo. I
put up a valiant fight but after considerable introspection (over
Shabbos), I have determined that I may have been somewhat careless with
my usage of certain terms.

I would therefore wish to restate my original quote as follows:

"BTY, please note that in my original quote I mentioned "mainstream
orthodox" (as opposed to the uninitiated Jew possessing little or no
Torah background). If you take the uninitiated Jewish crowd (sometimes
referred to as MO-Lite) into consideration, my ratio of billion year to
young universe believers would obviously be significantly impacted. I
do not take the MO-Lite world view into consideration and thus I am
only contending with a hashkafa that I consider uncompromisingly loyal
to the hashkafas haTorah. Personally, I believe that in some areas,
MO-Lite hashkafa is the result of "am aratzus" (lack of Torah knowledge)
and thus does not deserve the consideration it might had its proponents
been more proficient in classical Jewish sources."

If I have offended anyone, I apologize.

Simcha Coffer

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


[ 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         ]