Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sam2- This medium- being by necessity anonymous- brings forward the most unusual people and subjects. You don’t know me at all, so you don’t know how I relate to rabbonim and Poskim. I try to be polite to all- even an anomymous poster like you. I don’t know where you see that I am -chas vesholom- dismissive of R”Moshe zz’l. “harei ani ke-afrah dee-areh” versus R”Moshe zz’l. However, this does not prevent us from asking pertinent questions.We see that throughout history- respectful to our ancestors but clearly questions are allowedin any area. My doubt about the words of R’Moshe zz’l about mechitza being mi-doraisa is shared by many.It doesn’t mean that the doubters dismiss mechitza- it only means that there is a lively discussion and answers should be given.
Sam2: I respect your knowledge but your statement,trying to justify R”Moshe zz’l psak, is nonsensical. So, if a balcony actually WAS there- it is NOT proof that mechitsa was needed and may be “midoraisa’ , but , if there was no mechitza AND THE CHACHOMIN istalled it, it IS proof that it is “midoraisa”?? HUH?
GaW:you are repeating an old “chestnut” (imagined statement): there was never a possibility that non-induction is criminal and therefore, claiming that “the mishtara will burst into the yeshivos” is totally bogus. The only penalties will be financial.
Rejoining this discussion, allow me to make a few points.
It is patently clear from the gemoro sukkos that the balcony was not present for long stretches of the SECOND Bayis (and none in the first Bayis) and this makes R”moshe’s zz’l contention that it is d’oraisa even more problematic. I don’t know how R”moshe answers this question.
As for Sam2’s pointing out that R”Moshe zz’l holds that anything relating to “kedushah” needs a mechitza = this brings a plethora of questions, not the least that at R”moshe’s zz’l sons’ weddings, the seating was mixed (as attested by many).
Adding to this imbroglio about “kol isha”, Rav Weinberg zz’l held that “trei kole lo mishtamei”, two voices cannot be distinguished and, therefore, we can hear many women singing in unison. That would make the matter of Miriam and the women “because of kol isha” not possible.
I still have a gut feeling that, for long stretches of time, the shuls had separation of sexes but no mechitza, thereby respecting the “novih” and the gemoro sukkos that only required the balcony during yom tov. The architecture of the early shuls in europe tend to support that- a balcony was enough as long as there was separation.
DaasYochid; we are going around in circles and maybe we are both right. But I have a question for you that has been bothering me for some time. The gemoro in sukkos brings proof that,in certain circumstances, there must be a separation of the sexes from “novih” -zecharyah ,to be exact.(see sukkos 52A)Why doesn’t the gemoro bring proof from the Torah- when Miriam and the women went out to say shirah? it is explicit that the women were separate from the men. Wouldn’t that be proof enough?
DaasYochid: My point was not about “gathering’ but simplt about women having access to the main Bais Hamedrash. from Chana, the korbonos and even the gemoro i nsukkos, it is fairly clear that women had access to the centers of worship except during sukkos. if you can accept that, then the idea of mechitza is much less founded than what is intimated.
rationalfrummie- this is the answer I got over the years when asking the question, but, in truth, it is not satisfactory. There are many halachas that ae ‘self evident’ and they still codify them in shulchan aruch.
daas yochid: well, would you take down the mechitza in a shul when there are few women? Of course not- so you cannot simply say that the mechitza is based on the bais hamikdosh.
DaasYochid; I am puzzled by your criticism. When was I ever – g-d forbid- disrespectful to any gedolim?? All I have ever done is ask questions “lo habbaishan lomed” and it is never -g-d forbid- “lekanter”, only to know what their answers might be.
As for your second point- of course, the sukkos gathering was different but you surely know that women continued to come to the bais hamikdosh for many reasons. What happened on pessach? all year round? If we accept that there was no balcony-hence, no separation- why do we have today [in the chareidi world] a mechitza virtually everywhere ? is it a ‘midus chassidus” or is it halacha?
At the risk of being attackedon by many posters, I venture to say that “rebdoniel” is actually right. Inexplicably- certainly if you think mechitza is me’doraisa- the shulchan aruch does not mention mechitza anywhere. I am aware that for over a thousand years, the shuls in europe had balconies and so ,clearly, this separation of sexes during tefillah is very old – but the Shulchan Aruch does not mention it.
May I add that the Rambam says that this balcony in the Bais Hamikdosh was only put up during sukkos but taken down afterwards- so you have the additional problem that, all year round, there was no balcony at all.
to health-apukerma- joseph and all the others who cast aspersion on eretz yisroel: as i said many,many times, history will be the arbiter who is right. We will all keep to our beleifs.
“health” did you ever hear of “mesilas jeshorim” ? did you ever heasr of rabbeinu Jonah? Did you ever hear of the mussar movement? Methinks that these authors tried their hardest to make “frum jews” accept th emitzvas.No one called the people they spoke to “kofrim”….
As far as your second point- the sad part is that you just parrot what you hear without knowing if it is true….sad really…
to Sam2 and benignuman: I saw both the teshuvah by R’Moshe and had the good fortune to find the Chassam Sofer too. if you are able to see what R’Moshe zz’l actually wrote, it is a confusing teshuvoh. He starts by maintaning that we measure according the the people of the time asnd then concludes that the people-throughout all the centuries, dor hamidbor, gemoro times, our times- have not changed and hence, we have the same measurements. Confusing, at least to me.
He concludes that he made many measurements and that an “amoh’ would be between 21.5 inches and 23 inches. (here you have a source for the 66 inch mechitzah). I must say that -as I wrote- if you accept the tosfos opinion that a person is 4 amos tall- it seems totally out of proportion to reality- even t 21.5, the height of a prson would be 86 inches- seven feet tall!
benignuman: just checked the tosfos, but the tosfos makes the shiur we are talking about more problematic. Tosfos says that the height of a person is “four amos” and says that the mikveh is enough to be three amos because when the person immerses himself, the water rises. Now, if we maintain that a person’s height is FOUR amos, what does that make the actual amoh? It is almost impossible to accept the Chazon Ish shiur of sixty centimeter [24 inches] as this would make a person’s normal height 2.40 meter high! (eight feet!). It is almost a given that we have to accept the Chassam Sofer or R’Noeh’s shiur that is 45-48 centimeter and that would make a normal person’s height a manageable 1.80 – 1-92 centimeter (appx. six feet four inches). Still very high for the size of men two thousand years ago but possible. However, this would make the height of the mechitza three amos -shoulder high- and that would be 135 centimeter[53 inches] and maximum 144 centimeter [57 inches]. This is either 4 feet 5 inches or 4 feet 9 inches. This would be roughly shoulder high of today’s average person.
health- I don’t know what you do in life but you seriously consider becoming a lawyer specializing in criminal cases. Whatever comes your way, you twist it to accomodate your opinions. So, because the original medinah agreed to the points that the religious jews wanted (shabbos, kashrut..etc), you accuse the medinah of being kofrim because…- “we knew that they were kofrim” ! can you please explain to me how this logic works?
As far as the matter of the gerrer chassidim,vishnitzer chassidim,etc…can you please supply me with serious underlying quotations that they did not want a medinah? R’Itche Meir levin signed the Declaration of Independence, for goodness sake!
apukerma- I always avoid reading your posts and (of course)responding to them, as they are infused with fantasmagoric inventions and conspiracy theories that are only found in the darkest recesses of your mind. However, as you addressed me, I feel the duty to answer you.
You are correct in saying that the expression “Rock of Israel” was a compromise between some extreme secular parties (led by Mapam, the marxist followers) and the religious parties (led by Mizrachi, by the way) but this is exactly my point. Nowhere do you find that the medinah is based expressly on “kefirah'(as the original poster asserts)and, on the contrary, you se that the wishes of the religious Jews were actually respected,rather than rebuffed.
As per your second point- I am not going to respond to your wild conspiracy theories and your snide accusations that the “rabbonim’ were “collaborating”- an obvious attempt at insulting them, except to say that ‘we shall see” what the future brings.
And to “health” again: You have to support your contention that Rav Shach z’l was ‘against the medinah”. What is the evidence? And, aggreing that there is “hakoros hatov’ to the medinah is a stunning reversal from your positions that the medinah is all evil.
Lastly, where do find that the medinah is based on kefirah? Can you find one allusion to that? The Declaration of Independence ends with the quotation “with the belief in the Rock of Israel”.
Please show me where the medinah is based on kefirah.
well, shabbos and the hadlokoh of lag baomer clearly take precedence over reading/commenting on TWN, and so, today, I finally can read and comment some of the posters comments.
To “health”: Without sounding disrespectful to you, saying “I never heard of him” [R”Itche meir Levin z’l]only shows up your total misunderstanding (I was going to say ignorance but refrain “le’maan hasholom”)of history and what really motivates people in Eretz Yisroel. SO, let me enlighten you. R”Itche Meir Levin was a brother-in-law of the “Bais Ysroel”,having married the daughter of the “Imrei Emes’ (enough yichus for you?) and he made alyah in 1940- and signed the Declaration of Independenceof Israel ,as leader of the Agudah. He served as MK and minister in the government for years.
So, I would say that having one of the most important gerrer chassidim being intimately involved with the medinah kind of gives the medinah a “hechsher”. Don’t you think so?
I must be a masochist because i am going to respond to “health’ again-“no one from the frum community supported the Medinah”
Last time I looked, R”yitzhcok Meir Levin z’l-the gerrer rebbe’s brother-in’law- signed the Declaration of Independence…Last time I looked, they stilllfly the Israeli flag at Ponevezer yeshiva…
as far as your question about ‘a medinah based on kefirah’- not true, by the way- leanr some of Rav kook’s torah, the rambam, the Ramban and many others,maybe you’ll find some good reasons…
daasyochid: You proved my point because a multitude of people accept the eiruv in Boro park.
charliehall: I said that “bechayov”- during his lifetime, R’Moshe zz’l disapproved of any eiruv in Manhattan. his main reason was that the streets were “mefuloshim” (through streets) and there was “shishim ribu” (600,000)people in manhattan that invalidates most eiruvim. I also know that-prior to R’Moshe zz’l- Rav Henkin was the possek in america. In some ways, it is sad that he has virtually been forgotten.
benignuman: thank you for your analysis. I did not have much time yesterday to go over in detail sll the teshuvos that R’Moshe zz’l wrote on mechitza (there are about a dozen) and he does tackle the matter of three amos. If my memory serves me right ,he mentions tosfos but I do not remember where the tosfos are. You can enlighten me because “pashtus’ of the gemoro does not indicate that it starts below the head. As far as your indication that the measures change all the time, it is difficult to envision this, as this would mean that there is never an actual measure you can rely upon-whether it is shabbos (alpaim amos), mikve (3x1x1amos) and a multitude of other measures. I know that the “nodah bejehudah” does indicate that the “shiurim’ have changed but yo uassert that they change all the time. Will be happy to hear from you on this.
Sam2- and DaasYochid: Hopefully, you don’t misunderstand me. I was around when R’Moshe zz’l indeed was the Possek of klal ysroel in America, witnessing his piskei din and the fierce opposition he created at times (just research the matter of artifical insemination) and you are right that the general population accepted his piskei halocho. Yet, there were other Poskim who had their own views, “bein lekuloh” bein lechumroh”. In the same way one cannot ignore-CH”V- R’Moshe’s influence on psak this past half century, in the same way, one should not dismiss the other Poskim, if need be. Do remember that this forum is for discussion only, not for psak. When one comes to psak, I would always consult R”moshe zz’l .
BTW_ I do not know what Rav Belsky shelita thinks about the eiruv. Enlighten me.
There is something very strange in this question. i have never ,nver heard of a flight from Eretz ysroel to the US going by the arctic circle. Am I mistaken?
sam2- Your view is obviously becoming the minority. Did you last check the eiruv on the West Side? or in Boro park? R’Moshe zz’l was against them both. The “inyan” of cholov yisroel has been debated endlessly here and everywhere. Whiel R” Moshe was alive, he was indeed the possek for most of yeshivish American jewry but since he passed away so many years ago, things have changed.
Sam2-Thanks for your stimulating questions. I’ll answer the second one first. In shulchan aruch,hilchos shabbos,315,se’if 1, you will see that the Remo deals with a “mechitza’ (curtain) that is put up on shabbos for “tznius” (BTW- this actually supports some of those who said that a mechitza is needed on any occasion) and the Remo is “mattir’ because it is only a “ohel ara’i” So, your supposition that thsi ould be a “hiyun Missah’ is not supported by the Remo and halacha.
As far as your point about mechitza being d’oraisa. Certainly, R” Moshe zz’l can be “mechadesh” (bring anew) any “sevoro” (logic) he wants. The questions on his approach are numerous,starting with the fact that-until the end of Bays sheni- there was no separation in the bais hamikdosh. How would that be possible if it is ‘mideoraisa”? Secondly ,we find that there were women within the enclosure of the bais hamikdosh- see Chana- and how did they get there? R’Moshe deals with some of these questions but, in truth, there is no need to base it on d’oraisa- a “dina degemoro” is pretty strong to.
WIY- I had ther opportunity to quickly review all of R’Moshe’s teshuvos on mechitza (in chelek 1, OH”CH,chelek 3 OH”CH and chelek 4 OH”CH”) and ,indeed you were right in insisting that R”Mmoshe zz’l requires sixty inches and, preferably,even higher so as not to see the women. So, you are right as far as R’Moshe zz’l. Although, clearly, there are and were Poskim who allowed ten “tefochim”. There are a number of questions that R’Moshe himself tries to answer in his latter teshuvos. The primary question I would have is the fact ,that if you say that a mechitzah is up to the shoulders, how can it be 18 tefochim? A man’s height-as per mishneh and gemoro- is three amos (see mikveh)which is 18 tefochim so, ‘baal korcho’, up to the shoulders is significantly less? R’Moshe (in chelek 3) tries to answer but I did not fully understand his answer.
R”Moshe insists that it is ‘mideoraisa” and he has a fairly complicated way of deducing this from gemoro sukkos. There are many problems with this approach but this forum is too restricted to go into detail.
WIY- First of all, this is a forum for discussion, not piskei halochoh, and questions snd opinions on anything are allowed. You may not agree with my questions or opinions,but you should not dismiss them so insultingly.
Second, whether the “halachatoday’ is a great talmid chochom is irrelevant if the questions are valid. And- even according to him-if you check the sources,you will note that he quotes “lekatchilas” and “bedieveds”. I do remember clearly the fact of a mechitza till the shoulder as being sufficient and I also remember a kuloh of ten tefochim. Maybe it was relying on Rav henkin zz’l who, by the way, was the possek of america before R”moshe.
If you check the source you mention, you will even see that he brings a psak from R’Moshe that allows to daven just by separation of the sexes, with mo mechitza. All this ‘bedieved’ of course, but you cannot dismiss these matters so cavalierly.
rationalfrummie- I don’t know where all he talk about ‘talking,looking’ etc comes.All of this is correct and,obviously, there are problems in davening while seeing women but this is not the crux of the mechitza. It is simple. The mechitza is to separate the sexes. If they are naturally separated-as with a balcony- you don’t even need a mechitza. Otherwise, you need something to separate them and, learning from hilchos shabbos, anything that is the height of ten tefochim (appx three feet)makes it a different “reshus’ and qualifies as a mechitza.That is why a mechitza of glass is fully kosher (without going into the question of tefiloh and hair,etc)
daasyochid: I thank you for pointing us towards R’Moshe’s teshuvo. However, I read the whole paragraph and re-read and I still don’t understand what R’Moshe zz’l means. The “pashtus’of the gemoro in sukkos is that we are ALLOWED to make an addition to the bais hamikdosh (balcony)to separate the sexes is from novih. There is no indication from the gemoro that there was a need for separation “midoraisa’. And, in truth, there is very little in halocho that tells us to have a mechitza. No mention in shulchan aruch and, by the way, the Rambam clearly indicates that the addition to the bais hamikdosh was TAKEN DOWN after yomtov. So, you can, of course, accept R’Moshe’s reasoning but it is not fully clear.
benignuman- but there are plenty of pizza stores in monsey that DO have full seating. I am not even aware onf any that does not!
charliehall and rationalfrummie- EXACTLY. If you look at the gemoro in sukkos ,you clearly see that it was a (late?) introduction of “separation” in the SECOND bais hamikdosh. The only real aource for any separationof the sexes (note- separation, NOT mechitza) is from Novih (Zecharay 12).Look at gemoro sukkot 51B and 52A. This is why a balcony is enough- WITHOUT even having any railing(mechtiza0 at all. the separation aspect is the key. R”Moshe zz’l (if my memory is correct) paskens that a mechitza of ten tefochim (appx three feet0 s enough to mark that separation ,as we see in hilchos shabbos. The introduction of a mechitza is only for tefilah “me’ikar hadin”.Tthere are many mentions for the separation of the sexes in other settings but it is only for separation-not a mechitza- and it is -at best- a minhag.
yserbious123- I don’t know where you live but I know of no pizza store in Monsey that is NOT open motzei shabbos.Additionally, there are many sources for hechsherim in Monsey and i doubt whether the withdrawal of one hechsher will make any difference.
WIY: I don’t know what “halachafortoday’ is but there are signifciant mistakes. R”Moshe zz’l (nor anyone else) “paskens” that the mechitza has to be three amos high. That is absurd. Additionally, you better show me the pask and the sources that say that a mechitza is a must for anything else besides “tefilah”.
I don’t have R’Moshe’s teshuvos handy but there is no source that a mechitza is “mideoirasi”. The whole sugyah is discussed in gemoro sukkot and the source is “novih” not de’oraisa. So, your sources are very suspect and so is “hanachafortoday”.
yytz- thank you for the quote from one of R’Moshe’s teshuvos !
To put things into their right perspective:everyone is entitled to practice whatever chumros one wants-including not eating some foods. it is when you want to have the whole tsibbur undertake this that it becxomes a problem. Whether it is strawberries, cauliflower, lettuce or other foods, we can only go according the minhagim that have prevailed for hudnreds of years. Anything else is a chumro that should be left to individuals.
health: well your response to wolfman brings us really into bizarro world! But explain to me why ONLY things that are bad happen because of the evil zinsts but nothign good??
rationalfrummie: your posting is eloquent, but then you are “rational” !! Many have tried to say the same on these pages fro a long time…..only time will help!
josh31-Well said and thank you.
health- even rashi does not learn like you. look at the possuk from which this maamar is drawn and look at the meforshim on the possuk.BTW- do you say the pesukin in “jehi chevod’ every day?
health- The sad part is that you are so rigid in all your opinions that you cannot even see that there may be different opinions for many things. I do not, as a rule, even look at the artscroll- as I said, I am old-fashioned and look at the rishonim and plain Pshat. You are wrong in your Pshat and I showed you why. BTW- do you think that there cannot be other Peshotim than Rashi? Did you ever learn Tosfos?
health: “kol haposel bemumo posel’ – be careful about your gratuitous insults to me- they only reflect upon yourself!
That said- I am sure that the editors of Artscroll will be very happy to see that they are considered “Posek acharon”- the authoritative interpretation on everything. I am old-fashioned and I learn torah from the original.The original gemoro does not deal with punishments at all, but with the way HKBH leads the world,as is clear from ther pesukim that the gemoro mentions. Please also look at a few lines earlier in the same gemoro:”Ein od milvado” and look at the MaHarsho and his explanation.I would also suggest that you daven carefully tomorrow morning and when you say “jehi chevod” (right after “Boruch SheOmar”) slow down when yoy say the pesukim “Rabas machsovos belev ish veatsas hashem hih tokum” and “atzas hashem leolom taamod,machesovos libo lwdor vedor”.Just ponder those for a few seconds and then tell me what they mean.
anIsraeliYid; thank you for your cogent response to “health” on the gemoro in chulin 7B. It is abslutely clear that this is what the gemoro meant (Rabbi chaninah,actually) from the two pesukim it quotes as supporting this opinion. If you read these pesukkim (tehillim 37-23,Mishlei 20-24) ,it is crystal clear the the gemoro means exactly what you wrote: that nothing, not even the smallest matter, happens without HKBH’s will.
This is a very complicated subject and indeed, R”moshe zz’l has various teshuvos on this. in general, you accept the wedding as is, especially as the couple lives as man and wife. However, in cases of possible mamzerus, Poskim have gone back and used this possible “out’ of a wedding to avoid the “psul’ of mamzerus.
cherrybim: You have brought some background to this matter. R’Moshe zz’l believed that music is ossur all year round (see some of his teshuvos) and only reluctanlty acquiesced to the kulos of today.Hence, R’Moshe zz’l felt that during sefirah we should assert the halacha of all year round. And, if you read the teshuvos on music and sefirah ,it becomes even clearer that R’Moshe zz’l felt thast this was an extension of all year round halacha.
However, as a large part of klal yisroel is “meikel”on music all year round, it becomes much more difficult to prohibit music during sefirah. It seems that the “tsibbur’ accepted an issur for live performances but many groups are “meikel”‘ on recorded music, such as Chabad, mentioned by yourself, Rab Hutner zz’l and his talmidim and even R”moshe zz’l himself who allowed chazanut on sefirah.
This approach would at least give the Issur of music during sefirah some substance, which it doesn’t have now.
health- this will be my last post on this subject. You will continue playing up an incident that may or may not have happened, and clearly was -at worst- an evil thing made by some very misguided individuals.It has absolutely no connection with the establishment of the medinah. Certainly, any person engaged in kidnapping babies should be condemned and punished but it has no connection whatsoever with the medinah or even Zionism.
As far as your general efforts, good luck on persuading the six million jews in israel that the medinah is an evil thing.
One last remark- I find your rantings about all this being like the nazis and Holocaust deniers disgusting.You truly have no shame and you have no idea what the Nazis did to the Jews of Europe.
health- see posting from yichusdik.
I think you are grasping at the proverbial straws. No one is denying that certain abuses were done to yemenite Jews, including,possibly, the taking of some babies. To make this into an international incident when it is clear that it was the work of some misguided individuals is grasping at straws. And, again, what does Zionism or the establishemnt of the medinah have to do with this?
AviK- Thank you for bringing some sanity to this thread.
AnIsraeliYid; “tovoi olecho brocho” thank you for this courageous posting!
health; see above. And you are wrong in the pshat of the gemoro.
health- You are quoting a professor who wrote a book on this and herself writes ( from the review) : “still unresolved….alleged kidnappings…”
Something may have happened then and there are conflicting reports what really happened. I don’t see what the establishment of the medinas has to do with this. These were individual decisions taken by some overzealous people. The main theme of this Professor’s book actually has to do with the discrimination of the so-called “Oriental jews”. Any criticism from your corner is quite rich- seeing that the chareidi world in Israel is routinely discrimanating against sefardim (see Beth Shemesh). Spare me the crocodile tears.
daasjochid: I wrote “meikel in aveilus”, not directed at sefirah. I have no idea what many chassidim do during sefirah with music.
And to Hakatan: see above.
health- the gemoro is in chulin 7B :”ein odom nokef etsbu-oi milmatoh elo im kein machrizim olov milmaloh” . Rashi mentions that the word means “to hit”. But it does not deal with punishment at all. It means that everything -even a small matter of hitting one’s finger’- is directed from the heavens. You see that from the pesukim from where the gemoro learns it. From tehillim (37): ” MeHashem mitsadei gever konnenu” And, if you look at anyone who discusses this, it is clear that we are talking about events ,not punishments.
As I have written many times, it is useless to debate this with you. History will prove one side or the other right. I venture to say that neither you nor I will be around to see the end of this.For now, I prefer to believe that HKBH is magnanimous and gave us the medinah after the awful catastrophe we suffered.
daasyochid: actually, I said very clearly that I felt that live music could be prohibited because it has a sense of extra simcha and I could stomach the chumro. I did argue about recordings and your second assumption is therefore correct too.
But the basic question remains. There is no indication that the geonim or the rishonim added music- even live music- to the “aveilus” of sefira. This only started about two hundred years ago (if Sam2’s assumption about the pri megodim is right) and so, why? why add extra aveilus? I do not understand why.
BTW- i do belong to the chassidische world that is quite meikel in aveilus ,as the halacha would be.
DaasYochid and Sam2; I had the opportunity tonight to review the thesuvos in Igros Moshe that both of you have been quoting. Actually, R’Moshe gives absolutely no new reason why music would be ossur in the sefirah EXCEPT that it is an extension of the issur of all year round (to which he holds, BTW) and therefore, even for those who are meikel all year round, he says it is ossur in sefirah because it “adds simcha”. R’moshe says this ,so be it. However, his psak does not obligate everyone. You have quoted some sources that are meikel with recorded music and this is eminently logical. Hence, allow people to do each one “keminhogo” as we are not obligated to accept this new chumroh.
daasyochid: all sam2 said (in another thread) that the first mention of such an issur was (maybe) by the pri megodim ,who lived appx 200 years ago. And I accepted that the additional issur of LIVE music (concerts, simchas) may be acceptable. That alone is a big addition to the original takonoh. Now, you and others want to add ANY music to this takonoh- an exceptional chumrah that has no basis in the original takonoh.
I venture that even R’moshe zz;l does not find a basis for this in the original takonoh. As far as liquid soap, it was an illustration that one does not have to be bound by R’Moshe’s chumros because he says that liquid soap on sabbos iis ossur.