X hits on this document

Word document






132 / 157

scholars. He notes that there was no recitation of any other devarim she-bi-kedusha, including kaddish, kedusha or barekhu. Furthermore, the women did not recite the birkhot limud haTorah as part of the birkhot ha-shahar, but recited these limud haTorah benedictions, without the prior recitation of barekhu, before their pseudo-aliya. In the same Hebrew volume see the similar opinions expressed by R. Benjamin Kalmanzohn (p. 522-524), R. David Bigman (p. 525-526) and R. Judah Gilad (p. 527-528).

214.Conversation with Aryeh A. Frimer, June 17, 1996.

215.See Section E below.

215*.See also R. Shlomo Riskin’s conversation with R. Feinstein, infra, note 264.

216.Resp. Igrot Moshe, O.H. IV, sec. 49.

217.This was confirmed by R. Tendler in a conversation with Dov I. Frimer on September 16, 1997. R. Tendler noted that his discussions with his grandfather were conducted in Yiddish. The subsequent responsum, written by R. Tendler in Hebrew to R. Meir Fund of Brooklyn, New York and dated 14 Sivan 5743 (May 26, 1983), was based upon R. Feinstein’s formulations and phraseology. On this latter point, see the exchange of letters by R. Bertram Leff and R. Alfred Cohen, The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 34 (Fall 1997), pp. 115-118. See also comments at the end of note 65.

217*.R. Mordechai Tendler, conversation with Dov I. Frimer, ibid. See also the related comments of R. Avraham Shapiro in the text, infra, following note 225*. R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yom haShishi, 16 Iyyar 5757 (May 23, 1997), p. 26 and again on 27 Tevet 5762 (January 11, 2002) p. 26, has indicated that one should not rely on the halakhic rulings of a rabbi who, despite his recognized general scholarship, is known not to be an expert in halakha. Should one rely on such a halakhic ruling, if the rabbi’s pesak later proves to be in error, the questioner is held fully culpable (ne-hshav ki-meizid) for his/her misdeeds. A similar position was stated by R. Hayyim Volozhiner, Resp. Hut haMeshulash, I, end of sec. 13. See also Resp. Rashba, I, sec. 98 (end). If, however, the Rabbi is a halakhic expert, then no onus is borne by the questioner, should the posek have erred in his decision. See: Resp. Iggerot Moshe, O.H., I, sec. 186, s.v.ve-Af she-ha-biur;” and E.H., IV, sec. 61, s.v. “u-le-Fi zeh ke-she-ehad,” p. 221. Even so, R. Nachum L. Rabinovitch, Darka shel Torah (Jerusalem: Maaliyot Press, 5759) p. 212, and personal communication to DIF, January 17, 2004, maintains that the questioner is still ultimately responsible for his actions. Thus, he is only free of onus if the posek made an error in reasoning or analysis (shikul ha-da’at). However, as R. Zerahya haLevi, haMaor

Document info
Document views563
Page views564
Page last viewedSun Jan 22 06:24:12 UTC 2017