Volume 20 Number 91
Produced: Tue Aug 8 21:22:01 1995
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Alyiot
[E. Kleiner & S. Klecki]
Custom in Washington Heights regarding Mixed Seating
[Mordechai Perlman]
Eliyahu and Pinchas
[Micha Berger]
Good and Bad Angels
[Joe Goldstein]
Idolatry for Non-Jews
[Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer]
Lottery for Dividing the Land
[Joe Goldstein]
Pinchas and Eliyachu
[Ari Belenkiy]
Psak of Rabbanei Yesha
[Avi Wachtfogel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <ekleiner@...> (E. Kleiner & S. Klecki)
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 1995 17:04:51
Subject: Alyiot
Regarding the "hosafot" in the alyioth, there are many customs.
According to halakhah, one may add alyioth to those called up to the
Torah on Shabbath. During weekdays (Mon. Thu. and Rosh Hodesh) it is
not permitted to add alyioth, although there are some communities
which use to call a second series fo Cohen, Levi and Israel in weekdays
for special ocasions (such as bar-mitzwah).
About the festivals, it is prefereable not to call to the Torah more
than the stipulated number (5 + Maftir or 6 + Maftir), although it is
now the use among many communities to make additional alyioth on
hagim. On Simhat Torah everybody is called up to the Torah.
I am the rabbi of the Sepharadic synagogue in Santiago de Chile
(although I myself am not sephardi) and here I learnt other customs
regarding the calling of hosafot. I knew the ashkenazi use, i.e.: to
call by number up to the 7th. and then continue calling "hosafah" up
to the "aharon". But between the Spanish sepharadis (which come from
the Balkans, Greece and Turkey), the custom is to call by number up to
the 5th. The 6th. is called "samuj" and the 7th. "mashlim". If there
are hosafot, they are called between the 5th. and the "samuj" and they
are called as "mosif".
Rabbi Iosef Kleiner
Eduardo J. Kleiner & Susana Klecki
Internet: <ekleiner@...>
Fax: (562) 246 8319
Santiago de Chile, CHILE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mordechai Perlman <aw004@...>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 1995 19:01:03 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Custom in Washington Heights regarding Mixed Seating
On Fri, 21 Jul 1995 <LMETZGER@...> wrote:
> I think that your attending a siyum and being told that sitting
> separate is generally done is not conclusive evidence as to what is
> the custom in Washington Heights. For the record, I too attended the
> same Beth haMidrash program and recall that R Perlow, shlita, the
> then-Rosh Yeshiva tried to encourage the talmidim to sit "separate" at
> the Annual Dinner. I, as well as others, did not follow his advice
> but followed the custom of my day which was for "Breuer's" boys to sit
> "mixed." I sincerely believe that what you posted was what you knew
> to be the "emet" at the time of the posting; however, I believe that
> the data on which you based your posting was limited and thus your
> answer should not have been as sweeping now that you have additional
> data. I am concerned that your posting is "motzi la'az" on many
> rabbanim of that community whose family affairs were "mixed." Thus, I
> feel that a clarification is needed. I await your response.
I stand corrected. You are right. i should not base what I
thought to be the common custom of the kehillah on my brief experience.
I do not know what is done today but I discussed my brief occurrence with
somebody elae who was there with me and he told me that the reason that
it was done (i.e. the separate seating) was to satisfy the Ungvarer Rov,
who was going to grace the audience with his memories of the niftar (the
lately departed).
Do they still sit mixed today at the Annual Dinner?
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Micha Berger <aishdas@...>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 07:31:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Eliyahu and Pinchas
In v20n86, Chaim Schild pointed out something that made the tumblers
rotate in my mind, and something clicked.
> Nobody said in Eliyahu/Pinchas's case that it was the same body....just
> the same soul...
In Kabbalistic literature, the term "neshamah" refers to a specific part
or facility of the soul -- man's link to the spiritual realm.
Awareness, however, goes by a different term, "ruach". The third term,
used for the ability to stay alive is "nefesh". This distinction is used
in exegesis, so it not just technical terminology invented for the
Kabbalistic discourse, but part of biblical Hebrew.
To say the two shared the same neshamah would not imply that Eliyahu and
Pinchas necessarily had the same ruach. Without the same ego, the two
may be very connected, similarly motivated, but not the same person.
Perhaps, as those rusty tumblers keep on turning, this is a way to
settle belief in gilgulim (reincarnation) in general with that of an
afterlife. The ruach, the self-aware identity of man, goes to the World
to Come, but the neshamah could have further work to do here. In other
words, the two doctrines refer to different parts of the soul.
(For those bothered by the idea of an anatomy of soul, the concept of
nefesh, ruach and neshamah, or nara"n, is discussed by Rabbiner Hirsch
in Collected Writings VIII. As no one would consider Rav Shimshon
Rephael Hirsch the author of esoteric works, the ideas I'm discussing
are pretty broad-based in acceptance.
(Another note: both Rabbiner Hirsch and the Ba'al Hatanya use the
concept of nara"n without introducing it. It would appear that during
that span of history it was common knowledge. It's interesting to me
that a religion based on self-improvement and self-perfection has lost
sight of how we define "self".)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Goldstein <vip0280@...>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 95 08:59:04
Subject: Good and Bad Angels
Tara Cazaubon asks:
> I understood that there were
>good angels and bad angels. Does Hashem command bad angels to do bad
>things?
There are several different types of "Bad" angels. The Bad angels like
the SATAN or the evil inclination were created with the purpose of
giving humans free choice and by choosing to do good we get reward.
i.e. Without the influence of the Yetzer Horah a person would not sin,
therefore giving him reward for not sinning would be as if giving a gift
for doing nothing. The Mesillas Yeshorim explains that Hashem created
the world so that man could work on perfecting himself and therfore EARN
the reward given him.
The other kind of "bad" angel is the ones created by the sins a person
does. As the Mishna is Pirkey Avos says (Chapter 4) When a person does
a Mitzvah he gains a "Lawyer" for himself and when he does a sin he
gains a "prosecutor" for himself. (Also read the TEFILLAS ZAKOH, that
is said by many people before KOL NIDREI, for another reference to this
concept)
Hope this helps
Yosey Goldstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <sbechhof@...> (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 1995 19:23:04 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Idolatry for Non-Jews
Tara Cazaboun asks about the "permissibility" of idolatry for non-Jews. The
"Ksav v'Kabbala" Devarim 4:19 has a long discussion of the topic, whic is
based on the Rama's discussion of polytheism for non-Jews in Orach Chaim 156.
See also the Margalyos HaYam Sanhedrin 83b note 8.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Goldstein <vip0280@...>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 95 08:47:27
Subject: Lottery for Dividing the Land
Mike Marmor writes:
>I also saw that after this, the goral itself would announce the
>allocation! (If anyone knows a source for this, please let me know.)
Rashi in Parshas Pinchos, on the POSUK of AL PEE HAGORAL, according to
the Goral, explains that the goral spoke. (See Rashi Chapter 26 posukim
54 & 56) He also brings the Gemmorah quoted by Mr. Mamor.
Hatzlocho
Yosey Goldstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <belenkiy@...> (Ari Belenkiy)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 00:48:09 -0700
Subject: Pinchas and Eliyachu
Eli Turkel (JD#83) rose serious objections to their identification:
<Thus Bilaam and Lavan were similar personalities but not identical.
<Using this approach we could say that
<Pinchas and Eliyahu had many similarities, e.g. they both avenged the
<honor of G-d. However, they were not the same person. Hence, Eliyahu was
<from the tribe of Gad and not Levi. Eliyahu is referred as "ha-tishbi"
<and "ha-giladi" because he came from these regions and not from
<Jerusalem.
Still we can think about "reincarnation" of their souls.
In fact, this very approach will make "reincarnation" a respected
"Jewish" doctrine (the same way as "resurrection of the dead" became).
So far it is not "proven" that the soul of a Kohen should necessarily
incarnate into the body of the next Kohen.
Ari Belenkiy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Wachtfogel <awachtfo@...>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 95 09:20:30
Subject: Re: Psak of Rabbanei Yesha
>>From: Shmuel Himelstein (n) <himelstein@...>
>a) This ruling is based, among others, on the rabbis' interpretation of
>the dangers to Jewish lives with any withdrawal (from bases or
>settlements is now irrelevant, based on this ruling). Hypothetically, if
>a person is ill and might possibly need to eat on Yom Kippur, whom does
>one consult? A rabbi or a doctor? Similarly, how is that Rabbanei Yesha
>have decided to issue a Psak based, among others, on THEIR
>interpretation of the dangers involved, rather than on the military and
>the government, which - whether one agrees with it or not - have greater
>access to information about what is happening and what the dangers might
>be?
While it is true that the government has somewhat greater access to
information that doesn't mean that they are better decision makers. Does
the current government have information that the previous government
didn't have? Would a Likud government today be acting the same way if it
were in power? The difference between Bibi and Rabin is not a matter of
who has more information. It is a difference in opinion and a difference
in underlying values.
>b) Rav Avraham Shapira, as quoted by the _Jerusalem Post_ of last Friday
>(July 14), stated that there is no problem with the Psak in practice,
>because enough other soldiers can be found to carry out the orders even
>if there are conscientious objectors. This argument seems to me more
>than passing strange. In a landmark Psak, the then chief chaplain, the
>late Rabbi Shlomo Goren, ruled on a basic question - a religious young
>man in the army had been assigned some work which involved Chilul
>Shabbat. He wished to know if he could switch duties with a
>non-religious young man, who did not mind doing the work on Shabbat. Rav
This is interesting to me. While in the army, I often wondered if I
wasn't better off actually volunteering to do duty on Shabbat as I would
probably be careful to perform the duty with a minimum of Chilul Shabbat
which another person wouldn't. As for Rav Shapira's statement, my GUESS
is that this is a response to the political leaders who complained that
the Psak would cause a split in the country and possibly lead to civil
war. The statement which you quote would be a logical response to the
government. The psak did not rule that religous chayalim should not
consider themselves part of the army or should not follow any
orders. The psak ruled that they should not take part in the specific
actions. However since there are many other chayalim who are willing to
follow these orders, the government has the option of using those
soldiers instead and therefore it is false to say that the psak will
lead to a civil war.
>d) Do the rabbis involved realize the hornets' nest they've opened? In
>addition to the unbelievably strong opposition to their Psak across the
>entire political spectrum, much more, as some of them now admit, than
>they expected, we now have the specter of conscientious objection to be
>used by whoever wishes to. As some have said, the next step will be that
>non-religious soldiers will refuse - as conscientious objectors - to
>serve in the "territories," as they call them. If there is wholesale
This is indeed a complex issue. There have been cases in the past of
calls by Israeli leaders to disobey orders. Yair Tsaban and Yossi Sarid
called on Israeli soldiers to disobey orders in Yesha. If I recall
correctly Prof. Lebovitz z"l also made similiar statements. The idea
that there are some orders which shouldn't be followed is taught by the
IDF. During my basic training the concept of Pkuda Bilti Chukit B'Allil
was discussed at length. This same "hornets' nest" was opened by one of
our officers. We were specifically told that just as it is our duty to
perform Pkudot it is our duty to NOT perform Pkudot Bilti Chukiot
B'allil. This opened up the question of what constitutes a Pkuda Bilti
Chukit B'allil. The tachlis of all this was that there are times when a
soldier would have to use HIS OWN judgement as to what is moral and what
isn't.
Avi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 20 Issue 91
