BMG's "Adirei HaTorah" Event

[ari3]

I noticed that the roshei yeshiva have been publicly speaking in english more often of late. Unheard of a few years back. In yeshiva its still only yiddesh. As this was a BMG event, it was interesting that Reb Malkiel spoke some english.

There was pressure for more english. Supposedly they wanted R' Elya Chaim to speak in english but he declined.

[imayid2]

Seems like there is hope for the day when reality sinks in that people appreciate being spoken to in their (and the speakers) primary language.

[shlomoandtam]

after the siyum there was way too much music. however i found out that it was because R Yeruchem was feeling very faint (ironically probably from all that dancing) and hatzalah was treating him so they were stalling.

[S209]

after the siyum there was way too much music. however i found out that it was because R Yeruchem was feeling very faint (ironically probably from all that dancing) and hatzalah was treating him so they were stalling.

He was dehydrated a bit then but wasn’t away for too long.

[rs242]

after the siyum there was way too much music. however i found out that it was because R Yeruchem was feeling very faint (ironically probably from all that dancing) and hatzalah was treating him so they were stalling.

The music was the best part.

[shlomoandtam]

The music was the best part.

it was nice just didn't need 45 minutes straight of it.

[Moish613]

https://vinnews.com/2023/06/10/read-rav-lichtensteins-response-to-psak-allowing-rav-bergman-to-attend-adirei-hatorah-event-during-shiva/

[YitzyS]

https://vinnews.com/2023/06/10/read-rav-lichtensteins-response-to-psak-allowing-rav-bergman-to-attend-adirei-hatorah-event-during-shiva/

People are looking at this like it's some major controversy. There has been conflicting teshuvos written thousands of times in the past. I highly doubt any of those involved had anything less the the greatest of intentions. I wish the commenting public was a little more mature.

[Moish613]

People are looking at this like it's some major controversy. There has been conflicting teshuvos written thousands of times in the past. I highly doubt any of those involved had anything less the the greatest of intentions. I wish the commenting public was a little more mature.

Rabbi Lichtenstein seems to agree with you, as can be seen by the respectful tone of the letter.

[shlomoandtam]

Why did ywn and matzav post and then remove it?

[jye]

People are looking at this like it's some major controversy. There has been conflicting teshuvos written thousands of times in the past. I highly doubt any of those involved had anything less the the greatest of intentions. I wish the commenting public was a little more mature.

Just a couple of thoughts on the inyan:
There’s actually not that much written specifically addressing כבוד התורה and רבים צריכים לו. There are Gemaras discussing a heter for a בלן and ספר קודם הרגל which many ראשונים learn is מותר לדברי הכל yet the halacha limaaseh is unclear (עיין עוד דברי רש״י שם במו״ק שפי׳ שהוא גם פסידא).

There are teshuvos discussing צורך מצוה which almost all hold is not a היתר.

There is another place where there is a heter of רבים צריכים לו which I have seen anyone reference and that is in או״ח תקכ״ב there is a heter for someone to be carried in a chair through the crowd on yom tov, even though it is עובדא דחול when it is רבים צריכים לו. The mishna berurah defines it as someone who is giving a drasha in a beis medrash. However the שו״ע הרב and numerous other achronim bring the רשב״א in עבודת הקודש and others who (based on the Gemara of ילתא) include any עסקי רבים and allow even a woman who is needed for עסקי רבים to be carried.

If one assumes that רבים צריכים לו  by aveilus has the same definition as רבים צריכים לו  by yom tov, it would include other עסקי ציבור and צורכי רבים and Adirei Hatora would certainly seem to qualify.

(It is not surprising that the Gemara and Rishonim by aveilus only focus on examples of Talmud Torah and the excluded cases of Talmud Torah such as a melamed. They are discussing the איסור of an אבל to learn Torah and the exception of רבים צריכים לו. The heter to leave the house of shiva and appear in public in the beis Medrash is incidental.)

[imayid2]

There is another place where there is a heter of רבים צריכים לו which I have seen anyone reference and that is in או״ח תקכ״ב there is a heter for someone to be carried in a chair through the crowd on yom tov, even though it is עובדא דחול when it is רבים צריכים לו. The mishna berurah defines it as someone who is giving a drasha in a beis medrash. However the שו״ע הרב and numerous other achronim bring the רשב״א in עבודת הקודש and others who (based on the Gemara of ילתא) include any עסקי רבים and allow even a woman who is needed for עסקי רבים to be carried.

If one assumes that רבים צריכים לו  by aveilus has the same definition as רבים צריכים לו  by yom tov, it would include other עסקי ציבור and צורכי רבים and Adirei Hatora would certainly seem to qualify.

The רי״ץ גיאות explains that the heter of רבים צריכים לו by aveilus is because תלמוד תורה דרבים is docha the issur aveilus. This precludes the definitions you suggest.

[jye]

The רי״ץ גיאות explains that the heter of רבים צריכים לו by aveilus is because תלמוד תורה דרבים is docha the issur aveilus. This precludes the definitions you suggest.

The רי״ץ גיאות לשון is actually is a bit ambiguous; he contrasts תורה with כהן קורא ראשון which he says is assur because it’s רשות and not מצוה. See בית יוסף סי׳ ש״פ where he brings the רמב״ן (and appears to pasken like him) who specifically equates the היתר of בלן to the רבים צריכים לו of תורה and seems to learn that they are one ענין.

[imayid2]

The רי״ץ גיאות לשון is actually is a bit ambiguous; he contrasts תורה with כהן קורא ראשון which he says is assur because it’s רשות and not מצוה. See בית יוסף סי׳ ש״פ where he brings the רמב״ן (and appears to pasken like him) who specifically equates the היתר of בלן to the רבים צריכים לו of תורה and seems to learn that they are one ענין.

Yes but the רא״ש פרק ב סימן ב clearly draws this differentiation and we appear to pasken that there is indeed no heter for the בלן because of this.

[imayid2]

See בית יוסף סי׳ ש״פ where he brings the רמב״ן (and appears to pasken like him)

See לחם משנה ה י who explains there is a ט״ס in the בית יוסף. The Tur says the Rosh is machmir and that is his מסקנה. The mechaber doesn’t bring it down so it seems clear he is machmir.

Best מר״מ to be matir that I can see is a לחמי תודה who in regards to a shamash beis hakneses. He says that all מלאכת הקודש would qualify for רבים צריכים לו, even according to the Rosh.
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1944&st=&pgnum=49&hilite=
(See specifically the last paragraph)

[YitzyS]

*missing @CountValentine to come and say how every discussion becomes a religious debate...*

[jye]

Yes but the רא״ש פרק ב סימן ב clearly draws this differentiation and we appear to pasken that there is indeed no heter for the בלן because of this.

The ערוך השולחן סי ש״פ אות ל״א is matir צורכי רבים based on the heter of תורה.

[YitzyS]

https://vinnews.com/2023/06/11/the-adirei-torah-gathering-and-the-aveilus-heter-an-analysis-of-the-controversy/

[imayid2]

The ערוך השולחן סי ש״פ אות ל״א is matir צורכי רבים based on the heter of תורה.

Nice source. He doesn't really expound and I'm unclear how to square that with the Rosh and Tur.

Regardless, it's extremely difficult to see how this case would meet his stated reason of מה יעשו הרבים, and his caveat of ״ואין אחר במקומו״.

[jye]

Nice source. He doesn't really expound and I'm unclear how to square that with the Rosh and Tur.

Regardless, it's extremely difficult to see how this case would meet his stated reason of מה יעשו הרבים, and his caveat of ״ואין אחר במקומו״.

If he is referring to בלן then ואין אחר במקומו would certainly be necessary to create a צורך רבים. Once he includes  צורכי רבים in concept, he is not learning the inyan as strictly תלמוד תורה being דוחה the אבילות, in which case the expansive רבים צריכים לו of the  רשב״א עבודת הקודש by yom tov can be a good דמיון. (One could make the case that when it comes to בלן the Rif and ר״מ will say תלמוד תורה שאני because those are low level needs of the רבים, but when it comes to significant צורכי רבים like the רשב״א עבודת הקודש they would allow.)

(אגב What is fascinating is that the ר״מ מרוטנברג who’s psak in his מסכת שמחות פרק ח׳ is quoted as one of the main disputants of the Rishonim who allow בלן is actually סותר himself. He first strongly rejects the Rif there, arguing that רשב״ג who is מתיר בלן is דברי הכל and there is no בעל פלוגתא who is אוסר whatsoever so it must be מותר. Then, later on on the סיכום he simply goes with the Rif who holds there are חולקים and is מחמיר without comment.וצ״ע)