Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 77

Thu, 12 May 2011

• 1. Re: Shabbos invite and using eruv (eliez...@aol.com)
• 2. Re: Inviting Someone On Shabbos Who Uses the Eruv (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Chasam Sofer Responds to Rav Yaakov Emden, Defends the Singular Ashkenazic Kaddish (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Chasam Sofer Responds to Rav Yaakov Emden, Defends the Singular Ashkenazic Kaddish (Micha Berger)
• 5. The Ksav Sofer's Encounter with R. Yisroel Salanter (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Re: Chasam Sofer Responds to Rav Yaakov Emden, Defends the Singular Ashkenazic Kaddish (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Sparing One of Losing a Loved One (Richard Wolberg)
• 8. Re: Inviting Someone On Shabbos Who Uses the Eruv (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Inviting Someone On Shabbos Who Uses the Eruv (Isaac Balbin)
• 10. Re: Chasam Sofer Responds to Rav Yaakov Emden, Defends the Singular Ashkenazic Kaddish (Micha Berger)
• 11. On the Four Sons (Danny Schoemann)
• 12. Re: On the Four Sons (Danny Schoemann)
• 13. Re: Sparing One of Losing a Loved One (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Inviting Someone On Shabbos Who Uses the Eruv when You Don't (Micha Berger)
• 15. Halachic Analysis: The Hillary Photo Controversy (Prof. Levine)
• 16. Re: Halachic Analysis: The Hillary Photo Controversy (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: Halachic Analysis: The Hillary Photo Controversy (Micha Berger)

 

 I bring the rishonim that discuss this topic in my website, here- 

http://havolim.blogspot.com/2010/08/ki-savo-devarim-2718-arur-
mashgeh-iveir.html

But if you don't like to read blogs, the best mareh makom is R' Ahron Jofen's Ritva on Yevamos, 14b, notes 118-122. 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110511/0fb5b0bf/attachment-0001.htm>

On 10/05/2011 4:51 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> At 01:27 PM 5/10/2011, Zev Sero wrote:


>> How much more so when the eruvin are kosher according
>> to the majority of poskim

> I really no longer know the count of how many poskim say one can use
> the Eruv and how many say one cannot.  Almost all of the Young Israel
> shuls in Flatbush [...] the overwhelming majority of Chareidi Poskim
> said that it was invalid.

I was not referring to modern rabbis, but to the rishonim and achronim,
according to the majority of whom the Flatbush eruvin are kosher.

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

Does anyone know if having multiple people say Qaddish at once predated
the phenomenon of men who would go to minyan just because they were
saying Qaddish?

I'm wondering if the switch was accepted on the grounds that if we don't
guarantee them a chance to say Qaddish each time they show, not every
aveil would bother coming to shul.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 22nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 situation for the benefit of others?

Does anyone know if having multiple people say Qaddish at once predated
the phenomenon of men who would go to minyan just because they were
saying Qaddish?

I'm wondering if the switch was accepted on the grounds that if we don't
guarantee them a chance to say Qaddish each time they show, not every
aveil would bother coming to shul.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 22nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Netzach: Do I take control of the
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 situation for the benefit of others?

 From the Mussar Movement, Volume 1, part 1, footnote 5 pages 199 - 200.

5. See the eulogy in the collection of Responsa, 
Sefat HaYam; also Sha'are Zion, ibid., p. 23, 
which contains an interesting account of an 
encounter between R. Israel, and R. Abraham 
Benjamin Sofer, author of the Ketav Sofer, and 
rabbi of Pressburg: Once when R. Abraham Sofer 
returned home from one of the European spas, the 
leaders of the community went out to greet him. 
They noticed that he was crestfallen, his eyes 
moist with tears. Without saying a word to anyone 
he went to bed. Only some days later, when he had 
recovered, did he disclose what had happened. 
Stopping at a wayside inn, he was asked to decide 
an halachic question. He gave his ruling as he 
saw fit. Among the guests was a Lithuanian Jew, 
whose clothing did not bespeak any Torah scholar, 
and he made some comment. The rabbi, his keen 
mind at work, was able to give an immediate 
answer. But the Lithuanian Jew adduced support 
for his comment and a sharp debate ensued. The 
Ketav Sofer was completely taken aback and shaken 
by the acuteness and erudition of his 
interlocutor. So dejected did he become that he 
took ill. Later it transpired that this 
Lithuanian Jew was none other than R. Israel. (As 
told by R. Zvi Pesach Frank, Rabbi of Jerusalem, 
who, heard it from a Hungarian rabbi).

Some add that R. Abraham Sofer was later offered 
the rabbinate of Brest-Litovsk (Brisk), but he 
refused, his reason being that he was afraid of 
the Lithuanian Jewish layman. See also, R. Jacob 
Glicksberg , Haderashah BeYisrael, (Tel-Aviv, 
1940), p. 463 for the evidence of one who 
actually heard R. Joshua Isaac Shapiro of Slonim, 
called "R. Eisel Chorif" and known for his 
tendency to denigrate all the Torah scholars of 
the time on account of his own mental acuity, 
say: "I consider myself a lamdan until I enter R. 
Israel of Salant's door. The minute I just stand 
before him, I feel effaced in the presence of his 
Torah." R. Joseph Baer Soloveitchik of 
Brest-Litovsk (Brisk) is also reputed to have 
said that R. Israel was "the craftsman and smith" 
(cf. Jer. 24.1. ? Rashi, ibid.).



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110511/c981a41c/attachment-0001.htm>

At 03:12 PM 5/11/2011, Moshe Lefkowitz wrote:

>I know of a women who recited kadish from the Ezras Nashim
>with the minyan answering amen,amen yhie shme raba etc.
>She did every year on the yartzeit of her father.

I saw the few times I davened during the week in the YI of 
Brookline.  It was clear that this woman came every day, sat behind 
the mechitza, and said kaddish.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110511/fc23962b/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha wrote:  An earlier example is when Hashem saved Lot and his family
from the destruction of Sodom. There too Lot was saved primarily in
Avraham's merit, that Avraham should be spared the pain of losing his
nephew.

If the above is true -- that God saved Lot in order that Avraham should be
spared the pain of losing his nephew, it seems pretty paradoxical that God
would not have spared Aharon the pain of losing his two sons. Obviously it
the 
merit of Moshe could have been legitimate and certainly Aharon was greater than Lot. This logic does not hold.

R' Micha also wrote: ...we are told not to gaze at a rainbow because it's a
sign of Divine Anger, that G-d is telling us that it's only his promise to
Noach that keeps Him from again flooding the world. (Chagiga 16a)
I have always been bothered by the rationality of this promise for two
reasons: First, there are at least a dozen other means of destroying the
world. So what's the greatness of not destroying mankind with water.
Frankly, I'd rather die by drowning than by fire. The second thing is: Does
it bring any comfort to all those people who have been devastated by floods
(such as what just happened in Mississippi) to tell them that
not to worry -- it's just them and their families that will be destroyed by flooding but not the whole world?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110511/7a9bd5d3/attachment-0001.htm>

On 10/05/2011 2:00 PM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:

> I understand that they have the right to follow whichever posek they
> choose to follow. This would apply to any time they are on their own,
> choosing to do whatever their posek allows.
>
> But if I hold that m'ikar hadin it is assur, why am I not violating lifnei iver when I ask them to do it?

Because you recognise that the Torah gives them the right to follow that
psak, so in doing so they're neither blind nor stumbling.

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

R' AM: wrote:

> I understand that they have the right to follow whichever posek they
> choose to follow. This would apply to any time they are on their own,
> choosing to do whatever their posek allows.
> 
> But if I hold that m'ikar hadin it is assur, why am I not violating lifnei iver when I ask them to do it?
> 
> Akiva Miller

It's the other way around. Acharonim discuss the situation where someone is
at your house and you know THEY don't follow on a certain Psak in kashrus,
but you hold that it's muttar, whether you have to tell them. The answer is
yes.

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:19:46PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> I saw the few times I davened during the week in the YI of Brookline.  It 
> was clear that this woman came every day, sat behind the mechitza, and 
> said kaddish.

Such was the minhag/pesaq followed in the Gra's shul, Vilna.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

RMB wrote:
> I am enamored on a different take on the four sons, but one which
> requires seeing the tam as an ideal. This is actually very defensible,
> given "veYaaqov ish tam yosheiv ohalim".
>
> The four sons involve two contrasts: the intellectual vs the experiential,
> and good vs lacking. If you get this in a fixed-width font (eg the web
> archive), here is the table I'm envisioning:
>
> ? ? ? ?     | intellectual | experiential
> ---------+--------------+--------------
> positive | ? chakham ? ?| ? ? tam
> ---------+--------------+--------------
> lacking ?| ? rasha ? ? ?| ? shyl"sh
>
>

Brilliant, as usual! Using this approach, one can see how each child
is a hybrid of all 4 types.

This solves the problem of : But my son doesn't fit into one of the 4
types mentioned in the Torah.

I would go so far as to say that in diferent areas, the same son will
be somewhere else on the graph: One will be a Tam for Shabbos, but a
Chakham for Tzitzis,

[I just did RDS the disservice of approving a broken copy of his post.
He followed up with this completed one. -micha]

RMB wrote:
> I am enamored on a different take on the four sons, but one which
> requires seeing the tam as an ideal. This is actually very defensible,
> given "veYaaqov ish tam yosheiv ohalim".

> The four sons involve two contrasts: the intellectual vs the experiential=,
> and good vs lacking. If you get this in a fixed-width font (eg the web
> archive), here is the table I'm envisioning:

>          | intellectual | experiential
> ---------+--------------+--------------
> positive |   chakham    |     tam
> ---------+--------------+--------------
>  lacking |    rasha     |  shyl"sh

Brilliant, as usual! Using this approach, one can see how each child is
a hybrid of all 4 types.

This solves the problem of: But my son doesn't fit into one of the 4
types mentioned in the Torah.

I would go so far as to say that in different areas, the same son will
be somewhere else on the graph: One will be a Tam for Shabbos, but a
Chakham for Tzitzis, a shyl"sh regarding Maaserot and a rasha regarding
Sof Zman Shma.

The Torah gives us 4 ways of Chinuch (which I have not analysed), and it
would be fair to say that each one needs to be applied as appropriate -
for the same child!

And this may be one more key to the OTD dilemma: We may be treating our
kids as one of the 4 sons, instead of a fluctuating hybrid.

Thanks, R' Micha!

- Danny

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 06:36:45PM -0400, Richard Wolberg wrote:
: R' Micha wrote:
:> An earlier example is when Hashem saved Lot and his family from the
:> destruction of Sodom. There too Lot was saved primarily in Avraham's
:> merit, that Avraham should be spared the pain of losing his nephew.

: If the above is true -- that God saved Lot in order that Avraham should
: be spared the pain of losing his nephew, it seems pretty paradoxical
: that God would not have spared Aharon the pain of losing his two
: sons. Obviously it the merit of Moshe could have been legitimate and
: certainly Aharon was greater than Lot. This logic does not hold.

Why? Bad things happen to good people, whether we speak of Aharon's loss
or Moshe's, or anyone else who knew and loved -- or even mildly cared
about -- Nadav and Avihu. For that matter, there are secondary effects.
Not only would the loss of nephews have to fit Hashem's plan for Moshe's
life, but also having a mourning brother. For that matter, Hashem's
plan would only include their death if having a beloved teacher greive
in this way belongs as part of Yehoshua's life. Etc...

: ...
: The second thing is: Does it bring any comfort to all those people who
: have been devastated by floods (such as what just happened in Mississippi)
: to tell them that not to worry -- it's just them and their families
: that will be destroyed by flooding but not the whole world?

I am certain that many found solace walking to the gas chambers in their
knowledge that the Jewish People would live on.

I can't answer your first question. ("...[T]here are at least a dozen
other means" -- and more horrific ones -- "of destroying the world. So
what's the greatness of not destroying mankind with water.")

But this latter question seems to be a straightforward "yes". People do
find tragedy more bearable when they know that at least the things they
lived for will go on.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 05:31:50PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> RMB:
>> If the melakhah is violated twice beheelem achas one can get kaparah with
>> just one qorban. But does that mean for sure that the cheit is the same
>> than if they only did it once? Is it safe to assume that the number of
>> qorbanos chatas implies the number of shegagos?

> Rambam PhM Shabbas 7:1 "sheharei ain b'yado ela shegagah ahas b'ikar  
> hamitzva".  Similarly in H. Shegagos 7:2 "shehakol shegagah ahas hi".

Does that mean a single cheit, or is it literal -- he only brings one
qorban because he only had one forgetting ("shegegah")? I think one
can only bring a proof one way of the other from a maqor that uses an
unambiguous (but very common) turn of phrase like "aveirah beshogeieg". Or
perhaps indicative would be someone discussing "beshogeig", since that
would imply we are talking about the number of aveiros, not forgettings.

I would like to say that the real cheit is actually the crime of neglect
implied by forgetting, not the act done beshogeig. But it's a claim
that I would like more solid grounding for. I find the notion that once
someone forgot and did the aveirah there is no motivation to minimize
his violation to that one instance to be very startling.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?

 From http://tinyurl.com/43afrrg
News Source: VIN News by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, it is safe to say that a simple 
reading of the Talmudic passage is that looking 
at women or photographs of them is 
problematic.  A more nuanced reading of this 
passage in light of the Shulchan Aruch and other 
codes is that it is not a problem ? even though 
some individual Poskim still rule stringently.

That is from a halachic point of view.  The media 
circus that has developed around this new 
controversy is very unfortunate because it 
depicts honest, G-d ?fearing individuals as being 
anti-women?s rights.  This is wrong and 
immoral.  This mischaracterization is an example 
of building a straw man so that they can be 
knocked down.  This Hasidic group is not the 
Taliban.  To characterize them as totalitarian in 
nature is repulsive and those in the media that have done so should apologize.

The Hasidic newspaper itself though should only 
adjust photos with permission and a disclaimer 
should be appended to the photo whenever they do so.
So who gained in this whole unfortunate 
episode?  Adobe Photoshop, the software company, 
of course.  They received several million dollars in free advertising. :)

See the above URL for the entire article.  YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110512/09307b33/attachment-0001.htm>

On 12/05/2011 8:12 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:

> The Hasidic newspaper itself though should only adjust photos with
> permission

He's wrong about that, because no permission was needed.  It's not
copyright, and anyone is free to do with it whatever they like.

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

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:17:25PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 12/05/2011 8:12 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>> The Hasidic newspaper itself though should only adjust photos with
>> permission

> He's wrong about that, because no permission was needed.  It's not
> copyright, and anyone is free to do with it whatever they like.

The photo came with rights reserved in the form of the text:
    The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be
    used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails,
    products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement
    of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

So as a matter of metzi'us, I think it is illegal.

From the perspective of midevar sheqer tirchaq, the caption should have
read something like " ... (Secr. Clinton's image removed from the photo.)"
To mislead people into thinking this was the actual scene (even if the
scene was set up for the photo-up) is halachically problematic, no? It's
not like the misrepresentation is for reasons of tact ["kallah naah
vachaduah"], one's anavah, or the usual reasons permitting bending the
truth. Particularly if you consider my suggested comment in the caption
a plausible option. And they had no real need to carry the picture
altogether, there are other ways to have illustrated the same story,
so omitting it was also an option.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 23rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Netzach: How does my domination
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            stifle others?


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 77
**************************************

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..."