Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 4

Fri, 07 Jan 2011

• 1. Re: There was no mechitza at the kotel (Meir Shinnar)
• 2. Re: Upsheren (Meir Shinnar)
• 3. Re: Rabbi Chiyya Ruba (Joshua Meisner)
• 4. Re: Rabbi Chiyya Ruba (Micha Berger)
• 5. : Upsheren Custom of Hassidim (SBA)
• 6. Re: Upsheren (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Rabbi Chiyya Ruba (Joshua Meisner)
• 8. Re: There was no mechitzah at the Kotel (T6...@aol.com)
• 9. Re: There was no mechitza at the kotel (Akiva Blum)
• 10. Re: nittel nacht (T6...@aol.com)
• 11. Re: worst aveirah (T6...@aol.com)
• 12. Moral Worth of the Jewish People in Mitzraim (Prof. Levine)
• 13. Re: Are there any chemists on Avodah? (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: attending a C service [was: More on Reviving a Ritual of Tending...] (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: worst aveirah (Micha Berger)

> Rav AKiva Blum
> 
> So it follows that any place that the tzibbur uses permanently for
> davening, automatically has the status of beis haknesess.
> 

Not so pashut.
From a long time ago (mid 70s), when I was the gabbai for the Princeton Yavneh minyan, which used rav Pinchas Teitz zt"l as its posek.
The minyan davened in the upstairs of Stevenson Hall - a kosher dining hall
(part of the Princeton official dining system)- it had moved there about a
year before I started.	The mechtiza was 10 tefachim high - the psak that
was relayed to me in the name of rav teitz was

1) A place that was not initially designated as a bet knesset does not have
kedushat bet haknesset - even if aftewards used - as long as it was clear
that other uses were still intended.
2) When the minyan moved from the old building, before the first davening,
they made sure to have another function first  in that space - and
intermittently use that space for other functions.
3)  Therefore, even though the space was being used permanently ( 3x
daily..) for tefilla, it did not have the din of kedushat bet haknesset
-and therefore one could use a ten tefachim mechitza.

It would seem the kotel would have a similar issue....
(now, rav soloveichik has a psak (given to the Riverdale Jewish Center in
the late 40s) allowing for a ten tefachim mechitza in a shul, but for rav
teitz the issue was what constituted a shul - and mere use was not enough
(or rather, the fact that other uses were deliberately planned and made
superceded the mere use)

Meir Shinnar

> 
> 
> On 5/01/2011 5:27 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> 
>> A very significant consideration is also the question if there is a
>> problem of /'chukos hagoyim'/ with the custom.
> 
> The holy Baal Shem Tov approved of it, and that should be enough to
> dismiss any question about its propriety.
> 
> 
Do you have a source?  My understanding is that upsheren was first
introduced when the talmide habesht made aliya and saw it in Israel in some
Jewish communities - where many think it was adopted from an Arab custom. 
However, that would put its adoption in Europe after the aliya of talmide
habesht - which would be after the ptira of the besht - so evidence of the
besht addressing it would be against this.

Meir Shinnar

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On the same amud, Chullin 28 (as explained by the Leiv Y-m), R' Ba Mari
> says that R' Chiyya Ruba -- as he is called in the Y-mi -- is allowed
> to argue with a mishnah. That he is called "Ruba" because R' Chiya was
> what we on Avodah have called a "throwback" to an earlier era of rabbinic
> authority. The way followers of the Gra and the Besht said about their
> respective rabbeim arguing with rishonim. With one major difference --
> the Chazon Ish's argument about the 2,000 years of Torah cutting the
> line between tannaim and amora'im would make this statement about R'
> Chiyya much more of a chiddush than the convention that divides rishonim
> and acharonim.
>

Unless one places R' Chiyya in the shnei alafim Torah, and draws the line
between tannaim and amoraim after him.

According to Encycylopedia l'Chachmei haTalmud v'haGeonim (Dr. Mordechai
Margaliyos, ed.), Rav moved to Bavel in ~219 CE and passed away in ~247 CE,
which would correspond to 3979 and 4007 respectively, so that R' Chiyya,
Rav's uncle, would almost certainly qualify under any definition as being
part of the shnei alafim Torah.  (I'm not sure what his sources are for
these years, but they appear to be reasonable.)  For that matter, it can
also be understood why "Rav tanna hu, u-palig", and perhaps why some of his
colleagues were not granted this privilege.


Joshua Meisner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110106/365925ad/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 04:35:56PM -0500, Joshua Meisner wrote:
: Unless one places R' Chiyya in the shnei alafim Torah, and draws the line
: between tannaim and amoraim after him.

Which one could do, but only as a variant on the CI's shitah. He defines
the end as the writing of the mishnah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

From: "Prof. Levine" To: 
From
http://forums.globalyeshiva.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/904606335/m/106101
3782

The upsheren custom of Hassidim, which at first glance seems like some
venerable and ancient custom no good Jew would oppose, is actually a
controversial new custom which they picked up from certain middle eastern
Jews called 'mustarbim', which was and is rejected by certain great gedolim
and communities.

A very significant consideration is also the question if there is a problem
of 'chukos hagoyim' with the custom. While we don't generally see it now (in
western countries at least), the fact is that in certain eastern cultures
(e.g. Arab and Hindu / Indian) a great deal was/is made of a son's first
haircut and it was accompanied by a significant celebration. It seems that
those Jews who started the custom Jews lived among such gentiles.
>>

Now for a different POV see the sefer Nitei Gavriel - the volume "Taglachas
yeladim" where, despite agreeing that it is a relatively new Minhag amongst
Ashkenazi Jews, cites plenty of sources to prove that it is not CV 'chukas
hagoyim' etc.

SBA

On 6/01/2011 4:21 PM, Meir Shinnar wrote:

>> The holy Baal Shem Tov approved of it, and that should be enough to
>> dismiss any question about its propriety.

> Do you have a source?    My understanding is that upsheren was first
>  introduced when the talmide habesht made aliya

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39166&;pgnum=227
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39166&;pgnum=228

Hebrew translation at:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=39167&;pgnum=146

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 04:35:56PM -0500, Joshua Meisner wrote:
> : Unless one places R' Chiyya in the shnei alafim Torah, and draws the line
> : between tannaim and amoraim after him.
>
> Which one could do, but only as a variant on the CI's shitah. He defines
> the end as the writing of the mishnah.
>

Though R' Chiyya is not mentioned in the Mishnah, he was very likely active
within that dor, which explicitly includes his contemporary R' Gamliel bno
shel R' Yehudah haNasi (Avos 2:2), so that even if the dividing line is
chasimas ha-mishnah, R' Chiyya could still be placed on the earlier side.

- Joshua
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110106/130e85a2/attachment-0001.htm>

From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
: 
 
 
>>RAB already brought to Avodah the discussion of whether the  current
plaza has more qedushah than the area had in 1918.

There was  also a second thread of discussion in the general topic:

The local  gov't's didn't allow a mechitzah to be put at the kotel,
for fear it would  trigger riots. (Rather than trying to contain the
criminals. <sigh>)  And in fact, the British finally allowed a mechitzah
in 1929, which did  indeed led to rioting across EY -- most notoriously
in Chevron,  Hy"d.

Does this qualify as she'as hadechaq or ein danin es ha'efshare  mishe'i
efshar?

Others, including myself, argued that since there is  no chiyuv to
daven at the kotel, or for the women to be there during minyan,  with
all those other shuls Y-m had at the time (how far away are the  four
shuls of the rova?), had davening without a mechitzah been a  problem,
they simply wouldn't have davened there. The presence of  alternative
locations removes the dochaq-ness.  <<

--  
Micha  Berger              
mi...@aishdas.org         




>>>>>
 
 
1. Davening at the kosel, when the population was tiny in comparison to  
today's, was considered like davening at a kever.  There was no mechitza at  
Kever Rochel or at Me'aras Hamachpela when I first visited those places, and  
there is to this day no mechitza at the kever of any tzaddik buried on Har  
Hamenuchos.  I don't know the halachos of what makes a place a bais  
knesses but certainly there is some critical mass where the sheer numbers  of 
people davening at a place make a mechitza necessary.  IIRC there was  
originally no mechitza in the BHM'K even, but the crush of people on yom tov  
eventually necessitated that a balcony be installed for the women.
 
2.  We cannot allow the goyim to keep us away from the kosel, our  holiest 
site.  That alone is she'as hadechak.  It doesn't matter how  many shuls 
there were in Yerushalayim when the Turks ruled E'Y, it was  critically 
important that we maintain our ties to our own holiest site.  We  could not and 
cannot allow the goyim to sever our ties to the kosel.   Saying "you don't 
/have/ to daven at the kosel" is like saying you don't /have/  to love your 
mother.  Where is your Jewish heart?!
 

--Toby Katz
==========




--------------------  





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110107/2fe1a1f0/attachment-0001.htm>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org 
> [mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Meir Shinnar
> Sent: Thursday 06 January 2011 11:09 PM
> 
> > Rav Akiva Blum
> > 
> > So it follows that any place that the tzibbur uses permanently for
> > davening, automatically has the status of beis haknesess.
> > 
> 
> Not so pashut.

> The mechtiza was 10 tefachim high - the psak that was relayed 
> to me in the name of rav teitz was
> 
> 1) A place that was not initially designated as a bet knesset 
> does not have kedushat bet haknesset - even if afterwards used 
> - as long as it was clear that other uses were still intended.
> 2) When the minyan moved from the old building, before the 
> first davening, they made sure to have another function first 
>  in that space - and intermittently use that space for other 
> functions.
> 3)  Therefore, even though the space was being used 
> permanently ( 3x daily..) for tefilla, it did not have the 
> din of kedushat bet haknesset -and therefore one could use a 
> ten tefachim mechitza.
> 
> It would seem the kotel would have a similar issue....

That is exactly why it is a beit hakneset.

TTBOMK, the lower kossel plaza (past the wall, and in the covered areas) are
used exclusively for davening, and no other purposes, deliberate or
otherwise.

Akiva

 
From: "The Goldmeiers"  <gldme...@rcn.com>
To:


So, I'm confused, which is normal really.  On Yom Hashoah, where  we ask 
that 
everyone stop for a moment of silence, That gets an argument of  Bitul 
Torah 
(let's ignore the other argument of chukas hagoyim for  now).  But an 
entire 
night of bitul is ok?

Shaya Goldmeier 

 
>>>>>
 
This is the first time I've heard the argument that the objection to Yom  
Hashoah is "bitul Torah."  Normally the question arises when charedim are  
spotted crossing the street somewhere and failing to stop for the two-minute  
siren.  They aren't learning Torah anyway while they're driving or  walking, 
so stopping for a moment wouldn't be bitul Torah.  The reasons  chareidim 
don't do Yom Hashoah have been much discussed, no need to rehash,  except for 
one over-arching principle, which is, they don't recognize yom tovim  or 
taaneisim or days of mourning promulgated by secular Jews.
 
Personally I have not heard of one charedi rav or posek who holds that  it 
is assur to stop and stand still for a moment when the siren sounds  (though 
some may say it's not necessary).  
 
Bitul Torah is not an issue.
 
Indeed, mipnei darchei sholom, the vast majority of charedim do  indeed 
stop for the siren when they are out in public, and that is by far the  
majority psak.  

 

--Toby Katz
==========



-------------------- 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110107/8e077b78/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: Saul.Z.New...@kp.org
: 
 
>> the gmara often lists  ,  eg  acts that  can   as a single  act  genrate 
multiple chiyuvim  of  chatat for example.   and  there is  a   general 
sense of intensity of sin  thru the punishment -- payment,  makot, mitat 
beit din, etc
i think other  religions  have  considerations  of what is the  WORST sin 
one  can  commit.

i wonder if  we have  a WORST.   i  thought   chillul  hashem is the worst. 
but  i  have  also come  across shichvat  zera levatala  as  the  worst  . 
[ this would  be  interesting if   true, since  the  tora  doesnt  mention 
it   directly post-sinai, nor  list  a punishment  [? un-atonable?]  ...<<

 
>>>>>
 
 
 
I am sorry I do not remember how he said it, but I once asked my  father 
about that and he replied -- this is a paraphrase, NOT the words he used  -- 
that it was an obvious guzma, meant to frighten people away from doing an  
aveira which many (most?) people are nichshol in at some time in their  lives 
but which the Torah nevertheless wants them to refrain from.  
 

--Toby Katz
==========



-------------------- 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110107/0164c342/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from RSRH's commentary on Shemos 11: 2-3

2 Please speak in the ears of the people, that each man may ask from 
his friend and each woman from her friend articles of silver and
gold.

3 And God let Egypt see that the people was worthy of favor; the man 
Moshe, too, was very great in the land of Egypt, in the eyes of the servants
of Pharaoh and in the eyes of the people.

Daber na. na always implies reluctance on the part of the person addressed ....

The people had just proven their moral worth in the most brilliant
manner. For three days their oppressors, blinded and rooted to the spot
by darkness, had been completely at their mercy. For three days all the
possessions of the Egyptians had lain unprotected in their homes. But
no Jew took advantage of this opportunity for revenge; no Jew touched
an Egyptian or even the least of his possessions. It was at this moment,
when sight was restored to the Egyptians and they found all their possessions
intact where they had left them, that God caused the Egyptians
to comprehend the moral greatness of this people. This realization at
last overcame the antipathy the Egyptians had felt for the Hebrews. And
more than all the miracles he had performed, the moral greatness of
his people made the man Moshe much esteemed in the eyes of the
Egyptians.

Perhaps Moshe and the people were reluctant to compromise this
moral victory by making such requests of the Egyptians as God now
commanded them to make. However, it was God's Will that His people
should not leave empty-handed. The previous generations, having spent
their lives in slavery, had not been able to acquire even the most modest
possessions. It was God's Will that the first foundation stone of His
people's prosperity should be acquired and consecrated through the
recognition of their moral greatness by those who hitherto had despised
them. Hence the use of na.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110107/ba9ea234/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 02:37:52PM -0500, Hankman wrote:
: In the daf, 54a, the gemara brings a Tani Levi that describes the
: construction of the Misbeach. It was concrete-like in nature. It used
: forms much as we would today, aggregate of perfectly smooth stones
: (not to be felt when passing a fingernail over them) and some sort of
: matrix or "mortar" composed of some sort of mixture of sid, kunya and
: zefes, commonly translated as plaster or lime, lead, and pitch or
: bitumen. My question is about this "mortar" they used...

Mamcheh appears to mean "to disolve", according to Dr Jastrow. So I
don't a mixture, while accurate, is necessary the right mental image. I
think the lime is being used as an alkaline (wikipedia says it's caustic)
to reduce the lead. Bitumen and pitch, both tarry, are nore likely
to react with lead, but if we have a chemist rather than someone doing
web searches, it would help.

But back to the point, the lead was machah, and therefore not in a
shiny metal form when used for mortar. I'm figuring the verb holds
the answer, regardless of the chemical details.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 12:22:24AM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: My father (R' Nachman Bulman, for newbies) held that it is assur to  enter 
: a C or R sanctuary for any reason.  He, and much of the RW Torah  world, 
: sharply disagreed with RYBS and parts of the MO world on this  issue...

FWIW, in general, RYBS was pretty machmir on this stuff. Many in the RW
world would agree to using a catering hall owned by a non-O synagogue;
he would not.

I think that reducing the question to RW vs MO misses too much of the
richness of the issue to be of use.

: Personally R' Bulman dealt with numerous individuals, probably  thousands 
: over the years, who had serious family conflicts with non-O relatives, non-O
: simchas and occasions, visits home to non-O parents and so on.  He guided 
: them step by step as to what to say and how to behave in order to be  
: mefayes their disgruntled relatives.  But bending on principle was not part of
: the allowable spectrum of reaction to these painful family situations...

It can be seen as a chumerah in kibud av va'eim, not "bending".

But in any case...

When I was engaged, and my kalah's first cousin was being called up to
read for her bt mitzvah, R' Dovid Lifshitz zt"l gave us similar advice
to the one recorded in RYBS's name. I do not know if this was general
advice, or if the fact that it was also a first impression that I would
be making added to the urgency of my fiance's kibud eim issues.

And I think the point of standing when they did and sitting when they
did was so as not to be rude, not to "fake it".

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 09:14:23AM -0800, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: i wonder if  we have  a WORST.   i thought   chillul  hashem is the worst. 
:  but  i have  also come  across shichvat  zera levatala  as the  worst  . 

There are multiple dimensions by which you can measure "worst".

Qal vachomer uses the number of activities restricted and the size of
the onesh. In which case, it would have to be a sin for which the
punishment is seqilah. Of them, perhaps chillul Shabbos, since a mumar
leShabbos kemumar lekhol haTorah kulah.

But none of the three yeihareig ve'al ha'avor are pushiable by seqilah.
They're clearly worse -- which means there must be another dimension
than that used by derashos miqal vachomer.

And since hevei zahir bemitzvah qalah kemitzvah chamurah, because you
don't know their rewards, it would seem that severity in terms of beis
din shel maalah is yet another axis by which one define "worse", even
if one can't actually measure along that axis.

LAD, the reason for ein atah yodea' matan sekharan shel mitzvos is because
it requires knowing the situation, and where one stands spiritually and
psychologically, in greater depth than a person is capable of knowing
himself.

HQBH judges "ba'asher hu sham", and thus if you can't know how an act
impacts who you are, you can't know the sekhar.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 4
*************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."