Volume 18 Number 37
                       Produced: Sun Feb 12  0:19:40 1995

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Aliyot w/o a Kohen
         [Harry Weiss]
Avera Leshma
         [Michael J Broyde]
Daf Yomi and Nach (Prophets)
         [Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Drashot before Musaf
         [Israel Botnick]
First Aliya in Absence of a Kohen (vol. 18 #32)
         [Yehudah Edelstein]
Kohen and Levi
         [Anthony Fiorino]
Permitted Aveira (Sin)
         [Moise Haor]
Rosh Chodesh
         [David L. Feiler]
Tenure of Psak/The Melbourne Eruv
         [Isaac Balbin]


From: <harry.weiss@...> (Harry Weiss)
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 95 19:29:22 -0800
Subject: Aliyot w/o a Kohen

Jerrold Landau asked about giving an Aliyah to a Levy or Yisroel in the
absence of a Kohen.  The Halacha specifically permits either.  Once a
Kohen is not there a Levy has no preference over a Yisroel for the first
Aliyah, but can only receive the first Aliyah (except Maftir and Achron
and non Brocho Aliyahs) in that case.

What an individual Gabbai will usually do is more often than not based
on who generally gets more frequent aliyot, Yisroel or Levy , well as
obligation situations, who gives bigger Misheberachs etc.



From: Michael J Broyde <relmb@...>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 09:24:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Avera Leshma

One of the writers, while discussing "avera leshma" made reference to
the famous remarks of the Gra on this topic.  For a broader survey of
the issues raised by avera leshma, Rabbi Nachum Rakover has an article
on this topic in the most recent issue of techumin which is a broad
survey of the many opinions voiced.  It contains some very practical

Michael Broyde


From: <gevaryah@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 00:11:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Daf Yomi and Nach (Prophets)

Eli Turkel raises in (MJ18#35) the issue of the relationship between
derashot in the Talmud and known historical facts, and asks the simple
question of how to reconcile the differences and contradictions. The
answer to it is that one should not take a derash literally; or in the
language of haza"l "ein meshivin al ha'hagada" (one should not debate
midrashic stories)(Tikunei Zohar hadash166a) In another place it is
expressed as: "ein lemedin ...ve'lo min ha'agadot" (one should not reach
an halachic conclusion from the agadot)(Yer. Peah 2:4)

Eli further raises the issue of halachic material derived from the
Prophets.  It is mentioned in several places in the Talmud that one does
not study halacha from the Prophets "divrei Torah mi'divrei kabalah lo
yalfinan" (one does not study halacha from the Prophets) (Hagiga 10b)
and "sh'ein ha'navi rashai lechadesh davar" (A prophet is not allowed to
introduce new halachot himself) (Shabbat 104a). The Talmud then gives an
example where the Prophets reminded us of a forgotten halacha (which is
OK) but did not introduce new halachot themselves.

The Talmud is full of Midrashic, anecdotal material, which is not
suppose to be taken literally. For example "a man should not eat onion
for its venom" (Eruvin 29b); "a man should not eat onion and garlic
[starting] from its head but from its leaves" (Beitza 25a), "a man
should not eat meat except at night"(Yoma 75b), "a man should never walk
behind a woman" (Berachot 22a).  These are wonderful folklore stories,
c'est tu.

Gilad J. Gevaryahu


From: <icb@...> (Israel Botnick)
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 10:08:37 EST
Subject: Drashot before Musaf

Aryeh Frimer asks why the sermon should be considered an interruption
between kriat hatora and the kaddish(before mussaf), whereas uvenocho
yomar and other things are not considered an interruption.

I think there are 2 issues here. The kaddish before mussaf is either an
introduction to mussaf, or a conclusion of what preceded it.  If it is a
conclusion of what preceded it, I dont think it goes back on kriat
hatora, but rather on ashrei and the other psukim said with ashrei
(mizmor ledovid, uvenucho yomar). The kaddish that is said before maftir
goes on the kriat hatora. The kaddish before mussaf then, goes on ashrei
and uvenucho yomar, just like on weekdays when there is no kriat hatora,
the kaddish after uva letzion clearly goes on ashrei- uva letzion (this
kaddish does also relate back to shmona esreh of shacharit see Ramo
orach chaim 55:3 but it is mainly for ashrei-uva letzion).

Secondly, some things are considered a hefsek and some are not.  Each
kaddish that is instituted in the seder ha-tefilla is associated with a
particular portion of the tefilla. The Ramo writes in orach chaim siman
54 (and also the rambam in his seder tefillos col hashana), that the
portions of tefila that kaddish can be said with are shmona esreh, or
pesukim from tanach (like psukei de-zimra). The kaddish before mussaf,
if it relates back to ashrei and uvenucho yomar, is because these are
tehillim and pesukim from tanach. To stick a sermon there would be a
hefsek even though the sermon is (hopefully) limud torah. Limud torah
can also merit a kaddish but it is a different kaddish (kaddish
derabanan). Therefore a sermon would be a hefsek but saying an extra
tehillim would not be.

Hineni he-ani would also be considered a hefsek. The fact that we say
hineni and have the sermon before kaddish serve as proofs that we
consider the kaddish to be associated with mussaf. (although the minhag
of removing teffilin on rosh chodesh after the kaddish that precedes
mussaf, would indicate that the kaddish goes on ashrei, and not on

Israel Botnick


From: <yehudah@...> (Yehudah Edelstein)
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 19:36:06 +0200
Subject: First Aliya in Absence of a Kohen (vol. 18 #32)

In the Code of Jewish Law - Rabbi Ganzfreid (kitzur), Chapter 23-9, it
states that a Kohen is first. If there is no Kohen present or he's in
the middle of Davening (after Barchoo), then either a Levi or Yisroel
can be called up, by saying Bimkom Kohen (if the Kohen is not present in
shul).  If I recall correctly the order of the Aliyot is giving proper
honor for the scholars, though today (for a few hundred years) to avoid
argument who deserves the honors, the normal order is Kohen Levi
Yisrael. I have noticed, like by us in our weekday minyan, we usually
have 1 Kohen amongst the 25 or so people.  Sometimes he's asked to
waiver the honor and agrees (i.e. 2 Yaartzeits etc) but remains in the

Yehudah Edelstein


From: Anthony Fiorino <fiorino@...>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 00:24:31 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Kohen and Levi

Jerrold Landau asked:
> In many shuls, when a kohen is not present, a levi will be called up for
> the first aliya.  In some shuls, there seems to be a minhag (custom) not
> to call up a levi in such a case, but rather to call up a yisrael
> instead for the first aliya.  Does anyone know the source and reasoning
> behind this latter minhag?

I know that the Rav held that the Levi's kedusha is entirely dependent
upon the Kohen, meaning that in the absence of a Kohen, the rights of a
Levi compared to a Yisrael are disrupted and that in such an instance a
Levi is not deserving of preference over a Yisrael (as in the first aliya
or in bentshing).  In some metaphysical way, the hierarchy of
Kohen-Levi-Yisrael is entirely dependent upon the Kohen.

Eitan Fiorino


From: Moise Haor <pp002129@...>
Date: Mon,  6 Feb 95 07:47:21 EST
Subject: Re: Permitted Aveira (Sin) 

In response of Chaim Stern's posting V18#31, let me point out that in
Pirkei Avot, 2nd Chapter, 1st mishna, says "Consider the cost of a
mitzvah against its REWARD, and the REWARD of a SIN against its
cost". So there is a concept of "reward" for a sin....but i have no
further details...

Any one with a deeper understanding?


From: David L. Feiler <David_L._Feiler@...>
Date: 10 Feb 95  8:45:17 EDT
Subject: Rosh Chodesh

>  the fact that women should not work on Rosh chodesh is found in pirke
>   rabbi elazaer (44|) and Rashi to TB Megillah 22b, s.v.  "Roshei
>  Chodashim". It is attributed to the fact that the women refused to
>  participate in making the golden calf.    

  An interesting elaboration of this privilege accorded to women is
given by Asefat Zekanim (Shitta Mekubetzet Hechadash) on Megilla 22b,
quoting the Tur.  Each of the three major festivals corresponds to one
of the three Avot.  Pessach corresponds to Avraham ("Looshi vasi oogot
-- Knead and make cakes", Breishit 18:6) is a hint to matzot and
Pessach.  Shavuot is linked to Yitschak (the shofar blown at Sinai is
connected with the Akedat Yitzchak, the binding of Isaac and his
replacement by the ram).  Succot is linked to Jacob ("Ulemiknaihu assa
succot -- for his flocks Jacob made succot", Breishit 33:17).  In the
same way that the major Chagim are linked to the major forefathers, so
are the 12 occurrences of Rosh Chodesh, a secondary holiday, linked to
the 'minor' forefathers, i.e. the 12 tribes and their leaders.  But
since the women were actively involved in much of the labor required for
building the Mishkan (Tabernacle), specifically spinning (see Shemot 35,
v25,26), and refused to participate in the construction of the Golden
Calf, they were rewarded by having the relationship between Rosh Chodesh
and the men leaders of the tribes converted to a special relationship
between women and Rosh Chodesh.  This relationship is characterized by
women refraining from work on R.Ch. specifically because of their
special contribution to the Mishkan (analogous to the definition of
labor on Shabbat being derived from the melachot of building the

     The above-mentioned Rashi on Megilla hints at the motivation women
have for keeping this custom. (See also explanation in Halichot Beita by
Harav Auerbach, p.236, note 6).  Rosh Chodesh is linked to the natural
monthly cycle of women, based on Tehillim (Psalms 103:5) "Titchadesh
kanesher neureichi (Your youth will be renewed like the eagle)".  A
woman is renewed each month and returns to husband as on their wedding
day just as the moon renews itself each month and returns exactly as it
was previously.  Taking a longer view, women are promised that at
Techiat Hameitim (revival of the dead) they will return as they were at
a young age.

     As a side issue one biblical source given for the general idea of
refraining from labor on Rosh Chodesh, although not specifically
directed at women, comes from the Haftara of Machar Chodesh, the Shabbat
immediately preceding R. Ch.  (Shmuel I, 20:19) where the day *before*
R. Ch. is referred to as "Yom hamaaseh" the day of work, translated by
Yonatan Ben Uziel as "Yoma dechola" i.e. a non-holiday, implying
(obliquely) that the following day, Rosh Chodesh, *is* a holiday on
which refraining from work is appropriate.


From: Isaac Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 1995 13:41:54 +1100
Subject: Tenure of Psak/The Melbourne Eruv

In Melbourne, Australia there has been a good deal of drama regarding
its Eruv.  The ex-local Rabbi A who had constructed the Eruv, left
Melbourne a number of months ago and stated that the Eruv would stay
under his Psak until a given date. In the meanwhile, a replacement Rabbi
B was sought to look after the Eruv after that given date. Replacement
Rabbi B, did not take over the position of Moro D'Asro [Chief Rabbi] of
Rabbi A's community. Rabbi C took over as Moro D'Asro and worked closely
with Rabbi B.  After some discussion between Rabbi A and Rabbi B and
inspection of the Eruv, Rabbi B identified some alleged fundamental
flaws in the Eruv. After consultation with Rav Shimon Eider and Rav
Gavriel Tzinner and Rabbi C, the Eruv was declared invalid.

All this occurred prior to the use-by-date of Rabbi A's Hashgocho

A group of people had been visiting the Eruv perimeter and had stated
that no architectural changes had occurred since Rabbi A had left
Australia.  Rav Shimon Eider went as far as saying "Ein Bo Shemetz Shel
Eruv" --- effectively the Eruv was an exercise in Virtual Reality.  Now,
the story is not over.  Rabbi C stated that no one was to use the Eruv.
Rav Eider will be coming out to re-build the Eruv. Rabbi A is still
claiming the Eruv is okay.

This morning, a man in the Beis Medrash that I daven in (not the same
community that built the Eruv, but in the same locale) claimed that "it
was all on the head of Rabbi A. Rabbi A had paskened, Rabbi A held by
his Psak, and that this man was going to continue using the Eruv because
nothing had changed in the Architecture of the Eruv and as such he was
standing fast"

How correct is someone who wishes to continue using the Eruv before the
used by date has expired given that two experts cited above have
declared it completely invalid?

How correct is the man who wishes to continue using the Eruv after the
used by date has expired, given that no Hashgocho is present? What if in
this scenario the current Eruv is inspected and still deemed to have
undergone no architectural change? Can the withdrawal of Hashgocho
affect the Metzius [reality]?

PS. I never used the Eruv.


End of Volume 18 Issue 37