בשו"ת עמק הלכה ה"א סי' מ"ג כתב מו"ז הכ"מ זצ"ל ליישב מחלוקת המג"א והגמ"י בענין קבורת נפל ביו"ט שני של גלויות, ואמר שם אשר בעיה הגמ' בגמ' סנהדרין דמ"ו ע"ב בענין קבורה אי הוי כפרה אי בזיון דלרוב הפוסקים דס"ל הקבורה מן התורה דע"כ סוגיא זו כר' שמעון אתיא דדריש טעמא דקרא, דיש קרא דקבר תקברנו והגמ' מיבעיא אי משום כפרה אי משום בזיון. וא"כ המג"א ס"ל דכיון דאגן לא ס"ל כר"ש לענין דרשינן טעמא דקרא ממילא הוי נפל כשאר מתים להקבר ביו"ט שני, והגמ"י בשיטת הרמב"ם אזיל דב"ל כר"ש כמוכח מדבריו

In attempting to introduce some semblance of order, from the critical point of view of modern technology, into the current Polemics in the world of Halacha concerning the use of the incandescent bulb on the Shabbat, we must bear in mind, at the very outset, one important fact: that, at the present stage of the game we can come to no definitive conclusion. The entire problem is exceptionally delicate, because of the great stress laid in the Halacha on the laws of Shabbat and particularly on the laws concerning fire, and we must not forget that we are, figuratively as well as literally, playing with fire. Let no one be "moreh heter"—act lightly, because of the conclusions of one Rabbi or one authority. Let me briefly review for you the fundamentals of the laws of Shabbat as delineated by the Sages of the Mishna and the Talmud. The מלאכות שבת, the types of "work" which are forbidden on Shabbat (and the term "work" is used here in a technical sense, not in the layman's sense, just as the term "work" has a special technical meaning for the physicist) are derived from the types of work needed for the building of the Mishkan, since both passages—relating to Shabbat and Mishkan—are סמוכות, next to each other. The number of such categories of work is 39, the ל״ט מלאכות שבת. These 39 major categories are known as אדות, and each אד is subdivided into minor categories known as תולדות, the requirement being that each Toladah be similar to its Av in some certain specified manner. Let us now single out four of these Avot which will be of special interest to us. We have הדערה, making a fire, and extinguishing a fire. On הדערה the Torah issued a special prohibition, aside from the general sentence. "Thou shalt not make a fire in any of thy dwelling places on the day of the Shabbat!" Another Av Melachah is __________, which literally means "cooking", but, as we shall see later, has certain other and more inclusive connotations. The fourth Av Melachah I wish to mention is __________,…

The institution of Late Friday Services in American Synagogues, even in a number of otherwise strongly Orthodox ones, is a comparatively recent phenomenon. It is for that reason that, to my knowledge, the matter has not yet been analyzed with a view to testing its Halachic permissibility and, as a result, recommending either its acceptance, rejection or modification. Yet the introduction of this innovation into our own synagogues places upon us the responsibility, which we cannot escape, of developing just such a critique. This problem to which we address ourselves, like others of its kind on the contemporary scene, must be treated on two levels: the purely Halachic and the “trans-nalachic.” By the latter term I mean those matters which cut across technical lines, and are questions of policy that are primarily subjective value judgements in which we look at the picture in its totality, and take into consideration such elements of basic principle and public psychology as Pritzas Geder, Eis Laasois the comparative worth of Tefiloh Betzibor and שינוי מטבע שטבעו חכמים. While the purely Halachic issues require more scholarship, these trans-halachic matters call for more wisdom, and will ultimately be as decisive as the purely Halachic in determining our future practice. Of course, this dichotomy cannot be taken too literally, for the Halacha must necessarily deal with these larger “gestalt” issues as well, in the formulation of a final decision. But in this study I shall attempt to concentrate, insofar as possible, on the Halachic material per se. I shall do so, of course, without attempting to be comprehensive or presuming to offer my Psak. This is merely a first attempt to present some of the aspects of the problem for consideration. Description and Origin of Problem: The Late Friday Service is usually held during the winter months, when candle lighting takes place in the early afternoon. At about 8 or 8:30 P.M., the Kabolas Shabos and Maariv is held. This may be eith…

The Time Element B: The next phase of our analysis of the time-element does not involve the matter of Tosefes Shabos and the fear that a Late Service will result in its violation, but concerns a totally different though less severe question. And that is the subject of Orach Arah or Derech Eretz. The source of this argument is Shabos 23b where the Talmud relates that the wife of R. Joseph was late in kindling the candles. Her husband rebuked her for her negligence, on the basis of a Breisoh that: לא ימוש עמוד הענן יומם ועמוד האש לילה מלמד שעמוד ענן משלים לעמוד אש – רש"י אלמא אורח ארעא בהכי His wife then began to kindle the lights much earlier when, we read, אמר לה ההוא סבא תנינא ובלבד שלא יקדים ולא יאחר. The following should be mentioned with regard to this thesis: 1) As stated, Rashi refers to it as Orach Arah, and it is thus of a lower level of severity, since it does not inherently involve the essential laws of Shabos. Further evidence in support of Rashi that this does not touch on the question of Kdooshas Hayoim can be adduced from Yalkut Shimoni (Bshalach 230) where we read as follows: בא הכתוב ללמדך דרך ארץ מן התורה על ערבי שבתות עד שעמוד הענן קיים יהי עמוד האש צמח 2) Even more important in this connection is the possibility that this entire episode of R. Joseph and his wife, and the dictum of Hahoo Sava, does not refer to the Sabbath candles but to the Chanukah candles. Such is the reading of Bahag, Hilchos Chanukah. A similar conclusion may be derived from a study of the text of R. Asher (assuming that all references to Ner on that folio are consistent – cf. text of Alfasi), although the Vilno Gaon emends the text with the word שבת indicating that the entire discourse refers to both Shabos and Chanukah. Maimonides mentions the prohibition of Loi Yakdim Vloi Yaacher as a unit only with regard to Chanukah in Hilchos Chanukah Perek 5, Halacha 5, and not in regard to Shabos; in the laws of the latter (Perek 8 Halacha 3), he only mentions the prohibition of late…

I am grateful to the Editors of CHAVRUSA for giving me this opportunity to bring the discussions on the Late Friday Service to a close conclusion by responding briefly to the comments of Rabbis Weiss, Shoham, and Wolf published in the last issue. I am indebted to Rabbi Weiss for his thoughtful past article in which he supports my contentions in part, and particularly for bringing to my attention the Halachic dimension of the Kabbalat Shabbat psalms and hymns.Insofar as the Halachic criticism of my thesis is concerned, Rabbis Weiss and Shoham agree in disputing my equation of the Talmudic case of a prevenient Saturday night Maariv and our current problem of the Late Friday Service. They argue, essentially, that an early Saturday Maariv necessarily precludes Tossefet Shabbat, which is not the case with the Friday late service. There is no question that they are right — provided we remember that is only if we speak of an occasional delay in the Friday Maariv, so that Tossefet Shabbat is observed as usual. We, however, are discussing a case of, as I put it originally, "normalizing" the Friday Maariv at a late hour. There is no secret as to why we do so — it is because not only Tossefet Shabbat but even Shabbat itself will not be observed until that hour. It is an accommodation provided for those who do not observe the Shabbat. And I maintain that a regular and set Late Service necessarily precludes Tossefet Shabbat, by its very nature and cause and purpose, and gives rise to the legitimate fear of its inspiring actual desecration of the Sabbath proper. When we accept these realities in their practical context, we may justifiably entertain this equivalence between the early Saturday Maariv and the Late Friday service.I fail to understand why Rabbi Shoham seems amused by my attempts to find authority in Talmud and Rishonim for a peculiarly modern problem. If we indeed believe that the Halacha is always relevant and not just fossil material for dissection by legal antiqu…

Dear Rabbi Weiss: I’ve enjoyed your column “Modor Hahalacha.” Rabbi Norman Lamm’s latest contribution was very interesting reading. The thought is whether you are doing justice to the concept of a “Modor Hahalacha” by printing under its masthead a research paper, no matter how brilliantly or scholarly written. Even secular research has established a style and format of its own. Certainly halacha and sheilot u’teshuvot have a style of their own. If this was a sheilah it should have been addressed to the gedolim — if it was a chidush or teshuvah then writing Torah has a definite style — lashon hakodesh. Rabbi Lamm’s piece was a very fine bit of research, so should it not be labeled as such? Again, the wise are to be careful with their words, and to put into printed English the choice of making a choice between Maimonides and Tosafot does seem a bit risky. (Rabbi) Freddie Wolf, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Dear Rabbi Weiss: First, I should like to congratulate you on your decision to accept halachic articles from our musmachim for your column “Modor Hahalacha.” This should stimulate greater halachic interest and activity on our part. If I may, I would like to voice my disagreement with the basic premise of Rabbi Lamm’s article in the September issue of Chavrusa — namely, the equation of the question of late Friday night services to Maariv of motzaei Shabbat said beshabbat. By praying the Maariv shel motzaei Shabbat beshabbat, you necessarily preclude the possibility of tosefet Shabbat by the content of the Maariv shel chol. However, by praying the late Friday service, you don’t preclude the possibility of tosefet Shabbat. One can be mosif Shabbat without Maariv shel Shabbat also. I strongly believe that this objection definitely invalidates Rabbi Lamm’s premise and hence his entire thesis, which — according to him — seems to involve so many halachic authorities from Amoraic times through the period of the Ashkenazic and Sephardic Rishonim who presumably aligned themselv…

Rabbi Norman Lamm is to be commended for dealing boldly and in a Halachic manner with a subject of practical importance to every rabbi. This attests to our frequently affirmed belief that all topical questions must be treated Halachically and must be resolved only within its disciplines. In the first phase of his exposition, Rabbi Lamm compares the late Friday Night Service with the early Saturday Night Service which is permitted by the Talmud (BROCHOS 27b) but is regarded as an unfitting practice by Tosafos. The fears of the elimination of Tosefos Shabbos and Chashash M'lacha raised by Tosafos should, therefore, equally be applied to the late Friday Service. Rabbi Lamm posits, however, that the tacit approval of the early Saturday Night Service by the Rambam should be carried over to our question. Now if this approach is correct, it is fair to mention that the Shulchan Oruch (O.Ch. 293-3) adopts the view of Tosafos which should be for us Halacha Lemaseh. Even when a clear doubt exists the rule is to follow Sugyon d'alma (see 33a Sanhedrin) and the traditional practice all over is not to hold the Saturday Night Service before it is night. Rabbi Lamm may be correct in his suggestion that the Rambam does not object to the early Maariv on Saturday because he does not require Tosefos Shabbos. Then, it is an oversimplification to resolve our problem into a controversy between the Ashkenazic and Sephardic Rabbis, since the Rambam and the Tur stand alone (see Bes Joseph 261) in their silence of Tosefos Shabbos. All the other Rishonim including such non-Ashkenazim as Rav HaGaon and Ray Alfasi agree that Tosefos Shabbos is mandatory. But I think that the “din" of the early Shabbos Maariv would apply also to Yom Kippur where even the Rambam admits Tosefos for fasting at least. The reason should rather be found in Rambam Chapter XXIX of Hilchoth Shabbos in the 11th halacha where he says that the Mitzvah of Kiddush and Havdala is to be practiced at the time of the entrance and…

Norman Lamm, the author, is associate rabbi of the Jewish Center in New York City, instructor in Jewish philosophy at Yeshiva University’s Teachers Institute, and Editor of Tradition. The last issue contained his article on “Separate Pews in the Synagogue: A Social and Psychological Approach.”RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE KETUBAH: A Halakhic Critique: The “amendment to the Ketubah” announced some five years ago by the Conservative movement has been hailed by its leaders as “something which may very well place the Rabbinical Assembly not only on the map of the world, but also on the map of history.”¹ That the world has not been shaken by this action is already evident from the more recent pronouncements from Conservative sources indicating that their project is not meeting with the desired success, and that even many Conservative rabbis have decided not to make use of the “amended Ketubah.”² As for history, no one can accurately predict what the judgment of the future will be on the merits of this endeavor. But certainly history will record that its introduction generated sufficient controversy to rock to its foundations a Jewish community already sadly distinguished by its divisiveness and disunity. To this day most Jews remain confused, uninformed, and unenlightened by the polemics, for that is the only possible result when issues of religious moment are presented with immodest exaggeration and met with immoderate emotion, all in the public press.The Orthodox opposition to this innovation is based mainly on two factors: The competence of the proposed Beth Din (religious court), and the halakhic validity of the amendment itself. The first matter is serious indeed. How can Orthodox Jews—or, for that matter, any intellectually honest person—be expected to recognize the authority of an ecclesiastical court which denies (or, at the very least, seriously questions) the origin and hence the authenticity of the very Halakhah in whose name it presumes to speak and whose tenets i…

To the editor of Tradition: It was with a great deal of interest that I read the article "Recent Additions to the Ketubah" by Rabbi Norman Lamm, in the Fall 1959 edition of Tradition. However, I cannot agree with his halakhic conclusions or with his logic, and beg to take issue with his contention that the Conservative Ketubah is invalid because it is an asmakhta. Rabbi Lamm lists three definitions of asmakhta under which he classifies the third clause of the new Conservative Ketubah and concludes that the Conservative amendment is an asmakhta and therefore invalid. The first category of asmakhta mentioned is “Contracts Involving Undetermined Sums.” He quotes Maimonides (Mekhirah 11:16) to the effect that an obligation to pay an undisclosed sum, even with a kinyan, is not a legal obligation. Using this reasoning he desires to invalidate the Conservative Ketubah, stating that it too obligates the party who refuses to meet with their Beth Din or accept its decision to pay an undetermined fine. What Rabbi Lamm does not quote is the very next statement of Maimonides (11:17), which is: "Why then is it that if one makes an agreement with his wife to feed her daughter he is bound to do so? Because the agreement was made at the time of the wedding and this is an example of verbal promises by which one can take possession." Maimonides specifically states that an agreement to pay an undisclosed sum, made at a wedding ceremony, is binding, even though it would be invalid if made under any other circumstances. A kinyan, also, is unnecessary according to Maimonides. The Conservative amendment to the Ketubah is part of the marriage ceremony and cannot be included in this category of asmakhta. (The Mishneh Le’melekh [Mekhirah 11:2] remarks that Maimonides may possibly consider a contract containing any type of asmakhta valid, if it is made during the wedding ceremony.) Another reason why the Conservative Ketubah is an asmakhta, Rabbi Lamm claims, is that it is a “Contract Involv…

There are still many inhibitions in Orthodox circles about the permissibility and the advisability of having girls Bas Mitzvah. In most cases, our colleagues only grudgingly institute Bas Mitzvah ceremonies in response to overpowering pressures. The most frequent objection to the practice is that it is “ke-chukas ha-goyim,” a direct imitation of non-Jewish and Reformist groups. Several years ago, we printed a rather elaborate ceremony and material about Bas Mitzvah in Ideas. We have been informed that it is presently in use in very many congregations throughout the country. Its essential merit is that its manner of presentation obviated all possibilities of violation of tradition. We feel that Bas Mitzvah ceremonies will achieve more widespread acceptance with the passage of years, particularly amongst non-yeshiva girls. We now have several basic important rulings about the propriety of Bas Mitzvah. In a letter to a 12-year-old Tel Aviv girl who had asked for a ruling on the subject, Israel’s Chief Rabbi Itzhak Nissim wrote as follows (published in Yediot Aharonot): “The reason why in all Jewish communities a Bar Mitzvah has always been made for a boy is that from the day he assumes the commandments, he fulfills an immediate mitzvah, the putting on of tefillin. A girl, though she assumes the obligation of the mitzvot, does not have an immediate and special command to perform. This does not imply that a girl should not rejoice on the day of her entering the world of mitzvot. On the contrary, it is good and proper to make a celebration in honor of this occasion in her life. The celebration should be in her home in the company of her friends and relatives and with the participation of a rabbi. The rabbi should make a speech in honor of the occasion and should speak on the virtues of the law, on keeping the mitzvot and of the reward for those who keep them. It is fitting that the girl should wear a new dress and make the blessing of ‘Shehecheyanu.’ She should prepare a…