Volume 51 Number 03
Produced: Thu Jan 12 5:36:34 EST 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Aveilut for parent (2)
[Michael Goldrich, Stephen Phillips]
Clothing for Tefilla
[Robert Sherer]
Clothing? The Berdivitcher Rebbe brilliantly says it all
[c.halevi]
Forbidden Thoughts
[Russell J Hendel]
Letter markings in Tanach
[Shmuel Himelstein]
Priestly Blessing On Yom Tov Outside Israel - Why In Musaf?
[Immanuel Burton]
Sopping wet on Shabos
[<chips@...>]
Sridei Eish
[Ben Katz]
Status of Hinduism
[Rabbi Meir Wise]
Tachunun Exemptions
[Robert Sherer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Goldrich <michaelg25@...>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:44:58 -0500
Subject: Re: Aveilut for parent
> The source for aveilut of 7 and 30 days are brought down in Rambam
> hilchot aveilut but I can't find anything for the 12 months for a
> parent.
The RAMA on Yoreh Deah 376:4 gives sources for 12 months of Kaddish for
parents (Kol Bo, RYB'S in the name of the Tanchuma, Sifri, BCHYY quoting
Masechet Kallah, Bet Yosef quoting the Zohar, and Eliyahu Zutra quoting
Tanna Dvei Eliahu Rabbah).
The oft quoted Rabbi Akiva and the tortured soul who wants his son to
say Kaddish I believe is in Masechet Kallah.
This gives the year timeframe less one month because as the RAMA says we
assume our parents not to be wicked and in need of a full 12 months of
kaddish to save them from Gehenom.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Phillips <admin@...>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:26:49 +0000
Subject: Re: Aveilut for parent
I guess it has to do with the year during which a Soul can be punished
in Gehinnom. It is also related to Kibud Av VaEim [honouring parents]
The Rama states in YD 376:4, "But during the week [a mourner for a
parent] who knows how to daven [from the Amud] should daven, and this is
even more beneficial than Mourner's Kaddish [Kaddish Yasom], which was
only made for youngsters [under Bar Mitzva]."
We learn this from something that happened to Rabbi Akivah (it is
mentioned in Chapter 2 of Kala Rabasi and in the Ohr Zaruah). A man came
to him in a dream and he had obviously not attained a chelek [portion]
in Olam Haba [the world to come]. To cut a long story short, Rabbi
Akivah found the man's son, taught him how to read and had him recite
Kaddish. The man came to him in another dream and thanked Rabbi Akivah
for rescuing his Soul from the judgment of Gehinnom.
It is interesting to note what the Pischei Teshuvah writes in YD Siman
396 Seif Katan 4. He quotes the Chochmas Adam as writing that although
Chazal did not obligate a katan [child under Bar Mitzvah] in the Aveilus
[mourning] of Shiva and Shloshim, nevertheless perhaps the Aveilus of
the 12 months, which is because of Kibud Av VaEim, a katan is obligated
in. It would therefore follow that he would be obligated to say Kaddish.
Stephen Phillips
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <ERSherer@...> (Robert Sherer)
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:45:23 EST
Subject: Re: Clothing for Tefilla
> I think the issue (or bone of contention) isn't people who wear work
> clothes and daven enroute to or from work. The issue (to me) is people
> who dress down for davening. For example, someone who wears a suit to
> work then shows up at davening wearing a torn, dirty shirt & slacks.
I agree that is the real issue. Some one who comes to shul first
thing in the morning, and then goes straight to work, and maybe later,
on the way home from work, goes to daven Mincha, would be expected to
wear what he wears at work to shul at both ends of the day. What bothers
me is what some of these people wear on Shabbos, when, presumably, they
have dressed to go to shul.
Robert Sherer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: c.halevi <c.halevi@...>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:20:34 -0600
Subject: Clothing? The Berdivitcher Rebbe brilliantly says it all
Shalom to Klal Yisrael:
IMHO the issue of what clothing to wear while davening is a non-starter.
Martin Buber (Tales of the Hasidim: Early Masters, pg. 222) noted that
once when Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berditchiv was walking with his students,
they noticed a worker greasing his wagon -- while wearing tallit and
t'fillin. Outraged, the students complained to the rav, "Look at that
am haretz (ignorant peasant). Even while davening, he still greases his
wagon!"
"Yes, look at him," the rav replied. "Even while greasing his wagon, he
still daven to Hashem!"
KT,
Yeshaya (Charles Chi) Halevi
<halevi@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:06:23 -0500
Subject: Forbidden Thoughts
I was debating whether to continue the "Forbidden thoughts"
thread. Several factors motivated me to continue: (a) Two important
philosophical principles have not yet been clearly enunciated (b) Tzvi
in a previous posting (v50n92) brought up the issue of students going to
their Rebbe's to discuss such matters. While it is always laudable to
discuss matters with one's Rebbe; in something so personal it would be
better if students could resolve the matter themselves in the manner
indicated below. (c) I had made a minor error in a citation of a
previous posting which should be corrected. (d) Only 3 Biblical
commandments have been mentioned when in fact there are six.
(a) TWO PHILOSOPHICAL POINTS: The first principle is mentioned by Rav
Hirsch in his commentary on Leviticus 1: "The prohibition of impure
thoughts is not a negative prohibition but rather a negative consequence
of a positive obligation(DO vs DONT). In other words the prohibition is
not 'Don't think impure thoughts' since such a prohibition would
encourage impure thoughts. Rather the prohibition of impure thoughts
comes from violating the positive prohibition 'Think good thoughts--such
as learning and good deeds.' This philosophical viewpoint is justified
by the fact that it is the OLAH offering that atones on impure
thoughts. But the OLAH atones on omissions of positive
obligations. Hence we infer that the prohibition of impure thoughts is a
consequence of an omission of a positive obligation (DO vs DON'T).
The second principle was made by the Rav: Rabbi Joseph Baer
Soloveitchick on the verse 'God planted Adam in the Garden of Pleasure
to watch the pleasure and guard it.' The Rav explained that Judaism does
not prohibit enjoyment of pleasure but rather prohibits hypnotic
enjoyment--an enjoyment which controls the individual and over which the
individual has no say. We infer this from this explicit verse which
mandates guarding pleasure.
(b) REBBE-STUDENT ADVICE: It follows that a student asking his Rebbe for
advice on impure thoughts SHOULD be told to intensify his study of
Torah. He should not be told not to think impure thoughts!
(c) LUSTING: In a previous posting I reversed the determinant of
prohibition for 'lusting' vs 'coveting'. The correct determinants of
prohibition is as folows:'Lusting' is prohibited as soon as the person
believes that the object he is lusting is his, EVEN if he has made no
purchase; by contrast 'coveting' which consists of placing social
pressure on someone to sell an item is only violated when the purchase
actually happens.
This distinction is consistent with the remarks of the Rav---'lusting'
is prohibited BY ITSELF precisely because it is hypnotic in
nature. Ordinary desire for other objects is not Biblically
prohibited. It follows that ordinary fleeting desires on members of the
opposite sex, such as occur from socially seeing people are not
prohibited nor should one feel guilty about them.
d)ASTRAY AFTER EYES: The prohibition of 'don't go astray after your
eyes' was brought up. However d1) This prohibition is coupled in the
Bible with 'not going astray after your heart' which everyone interprets
as referring to idolatry; d2) the Rambam does not list the 'astray-eyes'
prohibition in the laws of Forbidden relation but rather in the laws of
Idolatry; d3) All examples of this prohibition in the Sifrah/Sifray deal
with idolatry. Hence using the principle of CONTEXT I would suggest that
the prohibition of 'don't go astray after your eyes' is a prohibition on
impure thoughts with women connected with idolatry. Both the golden
calf and the sin of the daughters of Moab involved linkages between
idolatry and women. It would follow that a person who thinks about a
women not connected with idolatry has not violated anything.
e) 6 COMMANDMENTS: Besides the prohibitions of (1)lusting (2)coveting
and (3)going astray we should also mention the obligation to (4)learn
(since as pointed out above the prohibition of impure thoughts is a
consequence of vioating the positive obligation of learning); (5) Many
people mention the commandment of 'be holy'; however while it is clear
that 'holiness' can be contradicted by non-holy actions it is not clear
that 'holiness' can be contradicted by all thoughts;indeed a person who
is excessively guilty about normal fleeting thoughts on members of the
opposite sex has defiled his holiness with his guilt; it would be better
if he left the fleeting thoughts as fleeting; (6) finally I should
mention the Rambam's explicit statements that a person 'should look over
a prospective wife to make sure he is pleasing to him...provided he does
not lecherously look her over.' It appears to me that the Biblical
source of this injunction is the commandment 'love thy neighbor like
thyself' (That is don't walk into a marriage unless you both are sure
you can enjoy each other). In this case there is an obligation to have
(fleeting) thoughts.
More can be said. I think however the above is adequate for one posting.
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:47:27 +0200
Subject: Letter markings in Tanach
I was going looking up a computerized section of Ezra (the Aleppo
Codex). In that chapter, I found the traditional markings of "Samekh"
and "Peh," to indicate where there is a break. However, in the second
chapter of Ezra, I found the letter "Resh" as some type of divider. Can
anyone enlighten me as to what this represents?
Shmuel
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 11:11:54 -0000
Subject: Priestly Blessing On Yom Tov Outside Israel - Why In Musaf?
The common custom regarding duchenning [the Priestly Blessing] outside
Israel is to do so only on Yom Tov. (I believe that some Sephardim
duchen every day, but that's a separate issue.) The duchenning occurs
during the Musaf repetition. On Simchas Torah, however, some Shuls
duchen in the morning service, presumably on the grounds that the
kohanim will have had kiddush after their aliyah and before Musaf, and
so invalidate them from being able to duchen.
My question is as follows: If it is acceptable to duchen during the
morning service (as evidenced by Simchas Torah), why do we not do so on
every Yom Tov instead of in Musaf on the basis that we should do a
mitzvah at the earliest opportunity? Why wait till Musaf?
Immanuel Burton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <chips@...>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 20:33:30 -0800
Subject: Sopping wet on Shabos
So, this past week I walked home in a driving rain storm and my coat and
hat were water logged. As I was hanging them up to drip in the bathtub,
I was wondering why is one allowed to do so? Not doubting that I could,
just what was the Halachic mechanics.
Perhaps it is because in some situations it would be possible for
clothes to drip dry before the end of Shabos, that the rule of not
making too many differentials [lo ploog] kicks in and one doesn't have
to drop the clothes onto the floor as soon as one walks into the house.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:54:14 -0600
Subject: Re: Sridei Eish
>From: Aryeh Gielchinsky <agielchinsky@...>
>I recently bought a new 2 volume Sridei Eish. One of my friends claims
>there was controversy about the Sridei Eish and not all of his letters
>were published. Is anyone familiar with this?
I believe the controversy was whether some of the letters
should have been published, not that some were left out. Rabbi Dr. JJ
Shachter devoted a considerable amount of space to this issue in the
Torah Unmada Journal a few years back. You could probably also contact
Marc Shapiro, who I believe edited the volumes of which you speak.
Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
e-mail: <bkatz@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Meirhwise@...> (Rabbi Meir Wise)
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 05:08:52 EST
Subject: Re: Status of Hinduism
I have discussed the status of hinduism with Rabbi Abner Weiss of Los
Angeles and Rabbi Jeremy Rosen of London both of whom know more about it
than me. Both were of the opinion that Hindusim is NOT avoda zara on a
technicality - as there is no concept of God in the Jewish sense and
therfore cannot be other "gods". Abner went as far as saying that he
would allow entry to a hindu temple more than a church! It seems to make
nonsense of the recent sheitl broohaha if this is correct. Any thoughts?
Rabbi Meir Wise
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <ERSherer@...> (Robert Sherer)
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:21:03 EST
Subject: Re: Tachunun Exemptions
> Is five the most CALENDAR exemptions possible? Do not count people
> related exemptions such as a groom, mourner, bar mitzvah, brit person
> at the minyan.
I would think so. A friend of mine noted that the "benching" was the
longest known, since it included Shabbos, Chanukah and Rosh Chodesh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 51 Issue 3
